> -^ e^^?e»< g ! * '* e^^^ <^ 



iTllEOLCGlCALSEMiKAKY.i 

I Princeton, N. X h 

i BV 811 .C55 

I Clark, Daniel. 

! A candid discussion of 

( Christian baptism 



"'i.xfSf^^X '^^- 



ELEGANT JUVENILE BOOKS. 



By Caroline Chebebro'. 16mo. muslin. Price 75 cents. 



THE STRING OF PEARLS, 

For Boys and Girls. 
By T. S. Arthur. 16mo. muslin. Price 75 conts. 



)T©[gD[E© /^©©[IDT ^RDDEaZ^y 

With Pictures to MatcK 
By F. C. WooDWORTH. 16mo. muslin. Price 75 cents. 



With Pictures to ^fatch. 
By F. C. "WooDwoRTii. IGmo. muslin. Price 75 cents. 



Published by Derby <fe Miller, Auburn, N. Y. 

Derby, Ortox <fe Mitllisan, Buffalo. 



THRILLING TEMPERANCE TALE. 



gull Mltlsou, 



THE RUM SELL KR'S VICTIM: 

Or, Humanity pleading for the Maine Law. 

BY EEV. J. K. CORNYN. 

A T&mperance Story ^ fotuided on fact — Introduction by Thurloio W. 
Brown, editor of the " Cayuga Chief'' 

12mo. muslin. Price $1,25. 



"It is founded on fact, ana is well adapted, by the Impressive scenes whicu 
it describe.^, to aroj^nc th« attention of the reader to the mischiefs of the li- 
quor traflia We trust tnia volume will find a wide circulation. Jt c*n*»>i( 
fail to exert a salutary inliuence." — N. Y. Tribv/ne. 

"A powerful appeal in behalf of the Maine Law. The story is terribly 
true to life." — N. Y. Independent. 

"It is a temperance tale, containing some striking scenes, and aiming, oy 
sturdy blows, to overthrow a great existing evil, by exposing it in its defor- 
mity, and suggesting the remedy." — Temperance Journal. 

"Written in a passionate, glowing style, as if the author were in earnest, 
and had seen the thing he describes. The friends of the Maine Law will find 
this book a strong pleader." — if. Y. Observer. 

"The author of this Avork has done good service to the cause by a series 
of spirit-stirring sketches, founded on fact."— iV; Y. Evangelist. 

"The story is well conceived, and finely narrated. While it will enter- 
tain those who like to peruse the description of stirring scenes, it will at tlio 
same time, if they liave any hearts, fill them with utter enmity against the 
' fire-water,' which steals away men's property, character and happiness. 
The work is very popular." — Christian Ambassador. 

"The author of this work has done good service to the cause, by a series 
of .spirit-stirring sketches, founded on fact" — Xortli^rn Christian Advocate-. 

Published by Derby &. Miller, Auburn, N. Y. 

Derby, Ortox & Mullfgan, Buffalo. 



FANNY FERN'S NEW BOOK. 



FROM 

[F/araEOV© [?^®[S'iriF©[LO(o),. 

One elegant 12ino volume. 
With JEigrht IllustratioHs, 400 JPag-ea, Price $1,25. 



She has a mine of fun, tenderness, and truth somewhere, and though tha 
jewels she polishes for the world are not large, they are of the purest water 
and \)r\g\\t.—Elisa Cook's Journal, {England.) 

Sweet, womanly, and surcharged with a tender pathos, we predict that her 
"Leaves" will become favorites.— jV". Y. Tribune. 

There is not a hearth that will not commune with her — there is not a heart 
that will not echo back tlie breathings of her nature. — Buffalo Repuhlie. 

They relate to almost everything of feeling, duty, foible, and things of 
beauty, and leave a moral impress.— iV. Y. Evangelist. 

So true to life, they can hardly be called Nations.— Literary Ad/vertiser. 

Winning upon the alTections as a tender, thoughtful, and pathetic mor- 
alist.— J.r^7t(/^;''s Ilame Gazette. 

The product of an inventive and beautiful mind, and a pure, gentle and 
loving spirit. — Albany Argus. 

There are pictures of love, of beauty, and of suffering here, equal to the 
best sketches of Dickens. — J^. Y. Mirror. 

We do not believe the author exists, who can equal her sketches.— Ca^iO- 
da Christian Advocate. 

As her " Leaves " wear a healthy hue, it matters not how widely they 
float upon the breeze of popularity. — ITew- York Recorder. 

They are the genuine oflFspring. of an original mind, the characteristic 
product of New EnglancL — Home Jotornal. 



SECOND SERIES. 

SECOND SERIES— uniform with the Fir-st— (in January, 1854) 

Publislied by Dkrhv <fe Miller, Auburn, N. Y. 

Derby, Orton, <fe Mulligan, Buffalo. 



NEW AND POPULAR BIOGRAPHY. 



THE LIFE 

OF 



hi^Bl J^lii {Sii^¥< 

BY D. W. BARTLETT. 
One vol. IGmo., muslin. Price $1,00. 



" His work is done carefully. His style is clear and graceful, and his sym- 
pathies are always engaged by the best aspects of whatever he takes in hand." 
— Bodon Daily Comi7io7iicealth. 

" A volume which will be eagerly sought. * * The reader has in one 
vol., one of the most interesting portions of English history." — Cayuga CTt^f. 

"A judicious biography of one of tho most charming heroines of histo- 
ry."'— A^. F. BaUy Times. 

" A charming book. We have read it with the most thrilling interest" — 
Religioiis RerahJ. 

"Mr. Bartlett always writes well, and he sustains his high reputation in 
this work, which is well sot oflF by the publishers." — Boston Olive Brancfi. 

" A very readable book," — Hartford Courant. 

""We could wish that this volume might find a place in every young la- 
dy's library, to the displacement of some of tho pernicious novels of the day." 
— Albany Courier. 

•* Very well written, and certainly worthy of becoming widely known." — 
Art?mr\s Home Gazette. 

" His chapters and sentences are symmetrically constructed, while his 
ready perception ai)propriates all the points of interest in his subject, and re- 
jects that which is irrelevant or not authentic — Hartford Times. 

"An easy, gi-aceful writer — he seldom fails to add interest to the sub- 
J'Hst on which he writes. — Christian Secretary. 

Published by Derby <fe Miller, Auburn, N. Y. 

Ddrby, Orton- <fe Mulligan, Buffalo. 



A 



CANDID DISCUSSIOJf 



CHMSTIAN BAPTISM, 



BY 

DANIEL CLARK, Jr., 

FAOTOE OP TBS PEESBYTEEIAN CHTTKCH IN FEEDOKIA, K. T. 



AUBURN: 
DERBY & MILLER. 

BUFFALO: 

DERBY, ORTON & MULLIGAN. 

1854 



Entered according to Act of Con«rress. in tlie year one thousand eight hun- 
dred and fifty-three, by 
DANIEL CLARK, Jb., 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Northern District of 
New-York. 



PTEKEOTYPKn BT 

DERBY AND M I L L E B, 

AVBUUN, 



PREFACE, 



The following treatise is designed, not to enlighten 
ministers, but to instruct the common people. Especial- 
ly is it intended' for the benefit of recent converts to 
Christ, whose minds are embarrassed on the subject of 
Baptism ; and of parents in pedo-baptist churches, who 
withhold their infant children from this sacred ordinance. 
It was originally prepared in the form of sermons to my 
own congregation ; and therefore, as much as possible, 
adapted to the popular mind. Many of the arguments 
are such as every minister of the gospel is, or ought to 
be, familiar with. They have been gathered unhesita- 
tingly, wherever I have found them. during a period of 
many years ; and have been so much incorporated with 
my own cogitations, that, to a considerable extent, I am 
unable to say which is borrowed and which is original. 
I have not, as I am aware, aimed at originality for its 
oion sake ; nor attempted it at all, except where my own 
thoughts seemed, if not better, at least as well suited to 
my general pjirpose as any others which I had at com- 



IT PREFACE. 

mand. Nor have I thought it best to enlarge the volume 
by attempting to offer all the arguments on the subject 
which readily occur to mind, and which are believed to 
be sound and unanswerable ; but have selected only such 
as appear to be best adapted to enlighten and convince 
the plain and candid reader. 

The subject of Baptism, though a trite one, is still im- 
portant on several accounts, and therefore entitled to 
grave and careful consideration. If, however, its discus- 
sion in the present work has any peculiar merits, they 
are believed to consist chiefly in the presentation of fa- 
miliar arguments in a more than ordinarily clear and con- 
vincing light, and in the spirit of candor and kmdness 
with which I have aimed to exhibit them. 

It is true that many able works — volumes; pamphlets, 
and tracts — having in view the same general object con- 
templated in this, have been already issued from the 
press. But no one that I have seen appears to be quite 
what is required, to meet the wants of pastors and 
churches m gathering in the fruits of religious revivals — 
especially in communities where sentiments of an oppo- 
site cast have had considerable sway. The belligerent or 
caustic character which most of the publications on this 
subject bear, has seemed to me to render even those de- 
signed for popular use, and in which the argumerft is con- 



PREFACE. T 

elusive, highly objeclionaljle as works to be put into the 
hands of recent converts ; and, for the same reason, not well 
caiculated to be extensively useful in relieving the doubts 
and correcting the eiTing faith of older Christians. And 
such as are not liable to this objection are, for the most 
part, wanting in that simplicity, clearness, and force of 
argument, and that condensed yet comprehensive treat- 
ment of tlw3 subject, which are required in a work of this 
kind, intended for general and permanent use. Whether 
the present little volume is, in these respects, any better 
adapted to the wants of the Church than others have 
been, remains to be seen. But, having hope that some 
good may come of it to the cause of truth and the kingr 
dom of Qirist, I now respectfully offer it to the public. 

D. a 

Frkdonia, January, 1854. 



CONTENTS 



PAOK. 

Introduction, . . 11 

CHAPTER I. 

IMPORT OF THK WORD BAPTIZE. 

Primary and classic sense. Derived or secondary sense. 
Scriptural use of the word. Argument from Mark 7 : 
1-5, and Luke 11: 38. Argument from John 1: 25. 
Argument from Heb. 9: 10. Argument from John 3: 
22-26 13 

CHAPTER II. 

DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 

Not to represent the burial and resurrection of Christ. 
Examination of Rom. 6: 3-5, and Col. 2: 12. lUustrfi- 
tion from 1 Cor. 2 : 13, and Gal. 3: 27. Not to effect 
spiritual union with Christ. Adult converts spiritu- 
ally united to Christ before baptism. Unconverted 
adults not spiritually changed by baptism. Simon 
Magus. Infants not spiritually renewed by baptism. 
Experience and observation. Wliat its design is. To- 
ken and seal of the covenant Symbol of spiritual pu- 
rification. Initiatory rite SO 



riii COKTE^fTS. 



CHAPTER III. 

PAOK, 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 

Example of Christ. Mode of Chri&t's baptism. Baptism 
of the eunuch, Baj^tism of the three thousand. Bap- 
tism of Saul. Baptism of the jailer and family. Bap- 
tism by the Spirit. Sprinkling of the blood of Christ. 52 

CHAPTER IV. 

INFANT BAPTISM OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 

Jfirst objection — The Scriptures require faith and repent- 
ance before baptism. Second objectiofi — No Scripture 
precept enjoining infant baptism. Third objection — 
No Scripture example of infant baptism 86 

CHAPTER V. 

INFANT BAPTISM ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. . 

The Church organized under the covenant made with 
Abraham. Infants included. The Christian Church 
a continuation of tlie same. The covenant still in 
force. Right to include her infant seed continued in 
the Christian Church, unless especially withdrawn. 
This right never withdrawn. Understanding of the 
Jewish converts. Silence of the unbelieving Jews. . . Ill 

CHAPTER VI. 

INFANT BAPTISM — HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 

The Commission to baptize the nations. How the apos- 
tles must have understood it. Proselyte baptism. 
Baptism of households. Testimony of Justin Martyr — 



CONTENTS. IX 

PAQS. 

Ireneus — Tertullian — Ovigen — Cyprian — Augus- 
tine — Pelagius. No record of the introduction of in- 
fant baptism , . . 150 

CHAPTER VII. 

INFANT BAPTISM — DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 

Is baptism an initiatory rite ? Relation of baptized in- 
fants to the Church. Why not admitted to the Lord's 
Supper. Why not subject to Chui'ch discipline. Ef- 
fect of infant baptism on the purity of the Church. 
Propriety of infant baptism. Rights of infants. Priv- 

and duty of Christian parents 174 



INTRODUCTION. 



Tjie risen Saviour stood with the eleven on the Mount 
of Olives. He was about to ascend into heaven to 
resume the glory which he had with the Father from 
eternity. He had completed the atoning sjvcrifice for 
men — had " magnified the law and made it honorable," 
— and had flilly prepared the way for the proclamation 
of redeeming mercy to all the world. The legal dispen- 
sation had answered its purpose, and was terminated ; 
and thenceforth the gospel — the good news of salvation 
by grace through faith — was to be more distinctly re- 
vealed, and made the animating principle of the Cliurch. 
He therefore gave, as his last charge, the gracious com- 
mission, " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, bap- 
tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
find of the Holy Ghost." 

It is my design, in the following pages, to discuss the 
subject of Christian Baptism, with the view of showing, 
as cleai'ly as I am able, wliat is intended by this com- 



Xil IXTE()ULC'n()X. 

niand of the Saviour to baptize all nations. The course 
which I intend to pursue is, 

I. To define and defend the true import of the word 
baptize. 

II. Discuss the object or design of this rite. 

III. With the help of what light may be obtained from 
the two preceding points, examine the question directly, 
What is the proper mode of baptism, as a rite of the 
Christian Church ? 

IV. Offer what I concei'/c to be a fair and sufficiently 
full investigation of the subject of i«/a«^ baptism. 

V. Solve some questions which often linger about 
and perplex many minds, in regard to infant baptism, 
even af\,er the argument is settled. 

It is hoped that such a range over the general subject 
of baptism as is here proposed, will be found, on the one 
hand, sufficiently comprehensive for ordinary readers, and 
on the other, not prove burdensome to any who feel in- 
terested in the subject. I will therefore proceed imme- 
diately to the discussion of these several topics in their 
order. 



CMISTIAI BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER I. 

IMPORT OF THE WORD BArTIZE. 

The unhappy differences in the Christian 
Church on the subject of Baptism depend, to a 
great extent, on the meanings assigned to the 
word haptize. If the honest inquirer after truth 
can be made to perceive clearly what is the just 
sense of this term, the way will then be prepared 
for him to apprehend readily the whole Bible 
doctrine of Baptism. I will therefore commence 
this discussion with the following question : — 
^Yhat is the true and proper import of the 

word BAPTIZE ? 

Many candid and excellent men, as the reader 
knows, regard this word as meaning plunge or 
immerse^ and nothing else. But from tliis view 



14 BAPTISM ; 

I must, in the present discussion, dissent ; and 
affirm that the Greek word from which this is 
formed, and which Christ and his apostles em- 
ployed to denote the administration of an ordi- 
nance in the Christian Church, has a variety of 
significations, depending on the circumstances 
in which it is used, and the subjects to which it 
is applied. When the Saviour instituted the 
sacrament of Christian baptism, he did not create 
the word by which it was to be called ; but 
employed a term which was tlien, and had 
long been, in familiar use. The word haptize 
(^^airri^o) was as old as the Greek language, and 
is therefore by no means confined, in its appli- 
cation, to this ordinance of the Christian Church. 
It was used freely to signify i7?imerse^ overwhelm,^ 
wash^ cleanse or purify. It is needless to cite 
examples showing these several uses of the word. 
They encumber the pages of almost every book 
written in defence of sprinkling or pouring as a 
mode of baptism. And besides, it is of no con- 
sequence in this discussion, any farther than to 
prove its use in the last-mentioned sense, viz, 
purify or cleanse i and in this sense I hope 
fully to demonstrate its use. 
The pri7nary or ariyi?ial meaning of the 



^MPORT OF TS-E WORD. 1^5 

word eeems to have been to jplunge or im- 
merse; in which sense the jyr^f^^'*^^ classic 
writers generally employ it. The other mean- 
ings appear to ha^^e been derived from this 
by a natural law of association. Because the 
effect of immersing in water was commonly to 
wash, to cleanse or purify, the same word bap- 
tize^ which was at first used to denote only the 
mode by which this eft'ect was procured, came 
at length, by association, to be used also to rep- 
resent simply the procuring of this effect^ without 
any reference to the mode of doing it. Hence 
baptism^ instead of always defining a specific 
manner of purifying, as by immersion, was, at a 
later period, also used generically to signify the 
act of purifying^ irrespective of the inode ; or 
purification by any mode whatever. This is the 
sense^ as I hope to show, in which the word is 
conmionly^ if not invariably^ used hy the inspired 
writers. They seldom or never nse it in the ori- 
ginal classic sense, but in this derived and sec- 
ondary sense. 

Although it is possible, and perhaps probable, 
ihat, under the Old Testament dispensation, re- 
ligious purifications, called sometimes in the 
Gtoek vfiKsion haptismSy were often performed 



16 BAPnsM ; 

bj immersion ; yet they were haptisjiis, not be- 
cause tliey were hninersions^ but because they 
^KQXQ j>urifiGations. In some cases, the washing 
of the whole body was required ; and in others, 
only a sprinkling of the " water of purifying." 
But in no case w^as the purification imperatively 
required to be by immersion. When a general 
ablution of the body was called for, immersion, 
in some circumstances, might be the most con- 
venient or agreeable method ; and in many other 
circumstances, a more gradual process of wash- 
ing from a small vessel would be most convenient. 
Either method met the requirement of the law. 
In either case it was accounted purification. 

Purification was both external and internal. 
External purification was sometimes a physical 
cleansing, and sometimes merely a ceremonial 
act. Ceremonial purification was designed to be 
symbolical, either of internal moral purification, 
which consists in repentance, or a turning of the 
heart from sin to righteousness ; or of spiritual 
purification by the Holy Ghost, which consists 
in sanctification, or deliverance from the defile- 
ment of sin ;* or of legal purification, which' 

* I suppose that moral and spiritual purification are dis- 
tinguished chiefly by regarding the. same effect as produced by 



mPORT OF TITE WORI>. 17 

consists ill justification, or deliverance from lia- 
bility to punishment for sin, and wliieli always 
presupposes an atonement. 

To enable the unprejudiced reader to see that 
the Greek word which we render hcqytize, as 
used by the writers of the New Testament, has 
the general sense oi' jju/'ijf/, wash or cleanse — 
and that, too, witliout regard to the mode of 
doing it — I think it will be only necessary that 
he examine with car^ and candor some passages 
of Scripture to which I will now invite his at- 
tention. 

Let him look Jirst, if he will, to Mark 7 : 1-5. 
"Tlien came together unto him the Pharisees, 
and certain of the scribes, which came from Je- 
rusalem. And when they saw some of his dis- 
ciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say, with 
nnwashen) hands, they found fault. For the 
Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash 
their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of 
the elders. And when they come from the 
market, except they ivas/i, (Greek, haj^tize,) they 

human or divine agency. When the internal pxirifioation is 
considered in its relation to human agency, it is termed re- 
pentance, or moral purification ; and when considered in ita 
relation to divine agency, it is called sanctification, or apir- 
ifunl purification. 



18 BAPTISM ; 

eat not. And many otlier tilings there be wliicli 
tliey have received to liold, as the washini^ (Gr. 
hajdizinfj) of caps, pots, brazen vessels, aud of 
tables. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked 
him, Why walk not thy disciples according to 
the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with 
unwashen hands ? " Xow, what is the general 
idea running through this passage ? Is it not 
2:>lainly the following? — The Jews,at this time, 
Avere very particular in observing the custom, 
according to the tradition of the elders, oi puri- 
fying themselves before taking their meals. 
And these Pharisees and scribes from Jerusa- 
lem were displeased, and complained to Christ, 
when they saw this custom departed from l)y 
some of his disciples. It was their standing 
practice to wash their hands before eating ; and 
^ when they returned from the market, except 
they washed they ate not.' When the washing 
of their hands is spoken of, the Greek word here 
employed for. " wash " is v«cr7o, nipto — a word 
that never defines the manner of washing, but 
permits it to be done in any way. This no one 
will dispute. And wlien they are said to wash 
on returning from market, and to wash their 
" cups, pots, brazen vessels, aud tables," the ori- 



IMPOKT OF THE WORD. 1'9 

ginal word for " wash " is [Satli^o^ ha^ptizo. Here 
the two words seem to be used as meaning 
tiie same thing, and are accordingly both trans- 
lated by the English word wash. Bat if nijyto 
and haptizo do here mean the same thing, then 
haptizo in this place means simply to wash or 
purify, because nipto never means any thing 
else. 

But if it is contended that the two words do 
not here mean the same thing, but that there is 
an extension of the idea, in passing from the 
washing on ordinary occasions to the haptizing 
after returning from market, — I answer, If it 
were proved that there is this extension of the 
idea, it would not follow that the baptism here 
spoken of was necessarily by immersion. The 
most that it would imply is that, after returning 
from market, a "inore general and t?torough ablu- 
tion of the body was had than was required on 
ordinary occasions. But this more general 
washing was simply for the purpose of thorough 
pxirijication ; and consequently this laptism 
w^as simply a pwrification — as truly so as the 
washing of the hands. But this supposed cliange, 
or extension of the idea, in passing from the one 
word to the other, is mere conjecture — it is 



20 EA?Ti?:-.r: 

not proved, and cannot be. The evangelist, in 
recording this comphiint of the Fiiarisees and 
scribes, takes occasion to speak of the general 
custom of the Jews on the subject oi 2>^.in/yhtg 
themselves before taking their meals ; and states 
what that custom is on common occasions, and 
what it is when they have been to market. 
But the idea of purif^^ing is the only one intro- 
duced, with perhaps the different degrees of 
tlioroughness recpiired on the different occa- 
sions. This is evident from the public declara- 
tion which the Saviour made on this very occa- 
sion. Yerse 15, " There is nothing from with- 
out a man that, entering into him, can defile 
him ; but the things that come out of him, these 
are they that defile the man," Their custom of 
washing or baptizing before eating was founded 
on the supposition that they might possibly have 
touched something which, by the ceremonial 
law, was accounted unclean ; and by handling 
their food in that state they might pollute it, and 
so defile themselves, by eating that which was 
unclean. Hence they purified themselves be- 
fore eating. This is evidently the meaning, and 
the only meaning of their washing or baptizing 
at such times. A similar complaint against the 



nirOIlT OF THE WORD. 21 

Saviour himself was made by a Pharisee who 
had invited Christ to eat in his house, as men- 
tioned in Luke 11 : 38. The passage, witli the 
coimeetion, is as follows : " And as he spake, 
a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with 
him : and he went in, and sat down to meat. 
And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that 
he had not first washed (Gr. baptized) before 
dinner." l^ow, suppose the Saviour, before eat- 
ing, had taken a small vessel of water, and, with 
a towel, had proceeded to wash himself tKor- 
oiiglily — all over, if you please — it would not 
have been immersion at all ; and yet, does any 
candid mind think that the Pharisee, in that 
case, would have marvelled that Jesus did not 
get into a bathing-tub and immerse himself? 
"Was it immersion or purification that the Phar- 
isee required? Manifestly the latter, although 
it is called by the evangelist lajptism. The 
Pharisee " marvelled that he had not first hap- 
tized before dinner." But, that purifying or 
cleansing was the idea involved is evident from 
what the Saviour says in reply. " And the Lord 
said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean 
the outside of the cup and the platter ; but your 
inward part is full of ravening and wickedness." 



22 BAPTISM ; '* 

Jt was the fact that he had not first made clean 
or PURIFIED himself that the Pharisee complained 
of. But " baptized " is the original word which 
Luke employs to express this idea. This shows 
in what sense he uses the term. Immersion 
would indeed have answered the purpose of the 
Pharisee ; and so would anything else by which 
purification should have been eflfected. The 
word '' baptized " in this place has clearlj no 
reference to the mode^ but only to the effect ^ 
and is synonymous with cleansed or purified. 
The same is true in the case above mentioned, 
where the disciples were complained of in a 
similar way. And when the Jews, as above, are 
said to hold the custom of washing (baptizing) 
" cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and tables,'^ 
or dining couches, (for all agree that this is what 
is meant by xXivwv, the word rendered *' tables '* 
— couches on which they reclined at meals,) 
it is preposterous to suppose that immersion is 
here the essential idea of baptism ; or that the 
word conveys any other idea than purification. 
Who can believe, from the mere use of this word 
in such a connectiou — and is there other evi- 
dence? — tliattlie Jews were accustomed, before 
every meal, to im'm4r»e their couchesy as- w«U m 



IMTORT OF THE WORD. 23 

their cooking utensils and table furniture ; and 
that, too, for the sake of the ^manner of doing it 
rather tlian the effect f It was plainly a cere- 
monial purification, and might be performed by 
washing in any way, or by sprinkling, which 
was a common mode of purifying under the law. 
The baptism of their couches was most proba- 
bly performed by sprinkling. Ko one, it seems 
to me, who has not a theory to support, can be- 
lieve it w^as done by immersion. And these 
cases illustrate the meaning of the word baptize 
as used by these inspired writers. It is purify 
or eleo/nse — denoting simply the procuring of 
an effect / and that without regard to the mode 
of doing it. 

That this is the true meaning of the word, as 
used by the evangelists, is further evident from 
the question put to John the Baptist, (John 1 : 
25,) when the Jews sent priests and Levites to 
ask him who he was. He having denied that 
he was the Christ, or the literal Elias, or any 
one of the old propliets returned, they ask him, 
" Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that 
Christ, nor Elias, neitlier that prophet^ " This 
shows that there was an expectation among them 
that Christy when he should coniej would hap- 



24: BAPTISM ; 

tize. But was there anything in the prophecies 
concerning Christ to awaken the expectation 
that he would immerse^ or be an imra^rseri 
Not one word. Why, then, should it have been 
expected that he would hajptizef And why 
should it have been suspected that John must 
be the Christ from the fact that he baptized ? 
The reason, is plain. It was distinctly declared 
(Mai. 3 :* 23,) that Christ or Messiah should pu- 
rify ; and this was therefore expected of him. 
As to what would be the nature of his purify- 
ing, their ideas were vague and confused. But 
as soon as John appeared, officially baptizing, 
and administering the rite to many of the priests 
and Levites, as well as others, they at once 
thought they perceived in him the predicted 
" purifier." Baptism was understood to mean 
purification. A great purifier had appeared, 
who, according to prophecy, was ' purifying the 
sons of Levi ;' and they readily imagined that 
this must be the Christ. On no other principle 
can it be accounted for, that John's baptizing 
should have been taken as an indication of his 
being the Christ, than that baptism was under- 
stood to be purification, and they knew Christ 
was to come as a purifier. This shows the 



IMPORT OF THE WOKI). 25 

meaning of the word haptize., as it was religlons- 
] V nsed among tlie Jews in the time of John. 
It was not immerrie, or sprinkle, or pour, or any- 
thing else which described a particular mode of 
doing a tiling ; but purify^ having no regard 
whatever to the mode. And the term haptism 
was used to denote any and every sort of re- 
ligious purification, whether ceremonial, moral, 
spiritual, or legal — that is, sacrificial. In speak- 
ing of the baptism of John, the word is used to 
denot-e the ceremonial purification with water, 
and also the moral purification of rej^entance. 
In repentance, the sinner withdraws his mind 
from the pollution of sin, and turns it to righteous- 
ness and purity. Hence it is moral purifica- 
tion. John preached the baptism of repentance 
— in other words, the purification of repentance. 
He preached that men should repent, and thus 
purify themselves in their moral affjcti ns. 
And as a sign of this moral purification which 
they professed, he administered the ceremonial 
purification with water. Water baptism, con- 
sidered as ceremonial pii/rification, is strikingly 
emblematical of repentance, which is moral pu- 
rification. But baptism, considered as immer- 
swtiy or anything else which denotes iTwdeycan- 



26 BAPTISM ; 

not, T^itli any degree of fivness, represent re- 
pentance ; because there is nothing about re- 
pentance wliich resembles tlie ?/it>t76' of immersion, 
or of sprinkling, or of i^ouring. It is not, tlien, 
the maiuie?' or mode of doing the thing which 
constitutes religions baptism ; but the procuring 
of a certain effect^ \\z. ])\mfioation. Any pro- 
cess by which purification is effected is haptisin, 
in the religious sense of the term. 

In Ileb. 9 : 10, the apostle calls the various 
purifications under the law " divers baptisms." 
*' Divers washings" it is in our translation ; but 
in the original Greek, the word for " washings" 
is,literally rendered," 5(2^^«W<9." In this chap- 
ter he labors to show liis Jewish bretliren that 
the Mosaic ritual could not take away sin, or 
produce real purity of heart and conscience, but 
afforded onl^' an outward purification of the flesh; 
while the application of Christ's blood, of which 
these " divers baptisms" were emblematical, was 
able to effect a true cleansing — a purifying of 
the conscience and heart — a deliverance from sin 
and condemnation. In the 10th verse he states, 
in general terms, in what tlie tabei'nacle service 
consisted. It "stood only in meats and drinks, 
and divers baptisms, and carnal ordinances." 



HVrPOKT OF THE WORD. 27 

Then, in the 13th verse, he adverts again to this 
service more in detail, and shows what he meant 
by the '* divers baptisms." " For," says he, " if 
the blood of bulls, and of goats, and the ashes 
of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth 
to the j9w/vy^?';^// of the flesh," &c. Tlie ^'di- 
vers hcqytisins^^^ then, were divers ptirifyings^ 
performed by "sprinkling the unclean" with 
" the blood of bulls, and of goats, and the ashes 
of an heifer." 

The reader will permit me to offer one more 
passage in proof of the fact that the sacred wri- 
ters use the term baptize in the sense oi purify. 
It is in John 3 : 22-26. While John Avas bap- 
tizing in Enon, Jesus with his disciples came 
into Judea and baptized. This was by some re- 
garded as indicating a sort of rivalry between 
John and Jesus. Some of John's disciples ap- 
pear to have felt a little jealously of Jesus, as 
if he were trespassing on the prerogatives of 
their master ; and they fell into a dispute with 
certain Jews on the subject, which they referred 
to John to settle. The account of the matter is 
in these words. " After these things came Jesus 
and his disciples into the land of Judea; and 
there he tarried with them and ba^ptized. And 



28 BAPTISM ; 

John also was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, 
because there was much water there ; aiul they 
came and were baptized : for John was not vet 
cast into prison. Then there arose a question 
between some of John's disci^jles and the Jews 
aboict purifying. And the}' came unto John and 
said unto him. Rabbi, he that was with thee be- 
yond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, the 
same baptizeth, and all men come to him." 
John immediately acknowledges the superiority 
of Christ, and thus settles the question. JS'ow, 
it is perfectly inanifest, on the face of the narra- 
tive, that this was a dispute growing out of the 
rival claims set up for John and Jesus, by their 
respective adherents, touching the right to bap- 
tize. It was in fact a question about baptizing ; 
and yet the evangelist calls it " a question about 
purifying." This, I think, makes it abundantly 
evident that he uses the terms haptizing Siwd pu- 
rifying interchangably, as meaning the same 
thing. Any process of purifying, therefore, ia 
baptizing; .because the Greek word xa^a^i^/xs, 
here translated *^ purifying," is never restricted 
to any particular iiwde. The 7nod& of purifying 
is always to be determined by some accompany- 
ing "term or .terms,' and not by the word pur^y 



JMI'OP.T OF THE WORD. 29 

(/c ^^'<;i^''^) itself. And since Ijaptize is used as a 
pynoiiyin oi j^icrffy^ it is manifestly improper to 
siscribe to it the specific and modal sense of im- 
merse, oi- pour, or sprinkle. Its meaning is 
more general, and regards sim})ly an effect wliicli 
either of these modes may procure. Purify is 
its most exact definition. 



CHAPTER II. 

DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 

'What is the true object or design o/ Christian 
baptism f It is doubtless owing, in a great de- 
gree, to a want of accurate understanding on this 
point, that so much difference exists among 
evangelical Christians in regard to this ordinance. 
If I could be sure of fixing in the reader's mind 
correct ideas of the design of baptism, I should 
feel little concern in respect to his views of the 
mode, or the proper subjects of the rite. But let 
me do what I can to this end. 

The belief is extensively entertained that one 
main design of baptism is to symholize and com- 
memorate the hurial and resurrection of Christ, 
This, in my opinion, is a radical error, and ought 
to be corrected. The Bible nowhere teaches 
that such is the main design, or any design at all 
of baptism. There are, however, two passages 
of Scripture which, by many, are thought to sus- 
tain this view, and which it is proper here to 



DAPTISM ; ITS DPJSIGK. 31 

examine. Tlie first is in Rom. 6 : 3-5. *' Know 
ye not that so many of us as were baptized into 
Jesus Christ were l)aptized into his death ? Tliere- 
fore we are Luried with him, by baptism, into 
death; that like as Christ was raised up from 
the dead by tlie i^^lor}' of the Father, even so we 
also sliouhl walk in newness of life. For if we 
have b^en jdanted togetlier in tlie likeness of his 
death, we shall be also in the likeness of liis res- 
urrection." Xow, I tliiidv that a careful and 
impartial examination of tliis passage will con- 
vince us that, by the baptism liere spoken of is 
not meant tlie baptism of ivater^ but that .yrlrit- 
ual baptism, or purification, by wliich the heart 
is renewed, and tlie believer becomes dead to sin 
and alive to rigliteousness. The connection of 
thi* passage sliows that tlie object of the apostle 
is to declare what must be the moral effect of 
justification ])y grace through fnitli in Christ. 
In the preceding chapters of this epistle, he had 
clearly taught this doctrine of justification by 
grace, in (u^)])0;>iti'.ni to the Jewish idea of 
justification by the wru'ks of the lavr ; and had 
sustained his position Ijy the most cogent argu- 
mentation. But now he anticipates an obje'ction 
that would naturally arise in many minds, espe- 



32 BAFTISM ; 

cially in sncli as were exposed to tlie influence 
of Judaizing teachers. The objection is, that 
this doctrine would lead to laxity of morals — 
that, if it be true that " where sin abonnded 
grace did much more abound,'' then men may 
feel at liberty to live in sin, since they tliereby 
furnish opportunity for the exercise of the more 
grace. " What shall we say then ? " he asks. 
" Shall we continue in sin that grace may 
abound ? " And here he proceeds to reply to 
this objection, in the passage before us, by urg- 
ing our Ixqytism into Christ as a guaranty against 
such perversion of grace. " Clod forbid ! How 
shall we that are dead to sin live any lono^er 
therein ? Know ye not that so many of us as 
were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized 
into his death ? Therefore we are buried with 
him, by baptism, into death ; '■ — plainly nxcan- 
ing death to sin. By our spiritual purification, 
or baptism into Christ, we so sympathize with 
him as to die unto sin as he died for sin. Thus 
we are said to be " baptized [purified] into his 
death.'' The baptism or purification of which 
the apostle here speaks is one that produces 
death to sin ; so as to furnish a perfect answer 
to the above objection raised against salvation 



rrs DESIGN. 33 

by grace. But baptism with water produces no 
sucii deatli to sin. And the objection against 
salvation by grace througli faith, that it must 
tend to licentiousness of manners, receives no 
refutation from the fact of our baptism, ii water 
baptism be meant. And yet, the apostle here 
offers our haptism as the security against this 
otherwise dangerous tendenc}^ But if spiritual 
baptism, or purification of heart be meant, then 
the argument of the apostle is perfectly conclu- 
sive, and the ol^jection is thoroughly answered. 
Our baptism produces death to sin, and " how 
shall we that are dead to sin live any longer 
therein ?" We are " buried into death " to sin 
by our spiritual baptism ; and of course it is fair 
to conclude that ' sin shall not henceforth have 
dominion over us.' " That like as Christ was 
raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, 
even so we also should walk in newness of life." 
In this expression the apostle shows wliat bap- 
tism he is speaking of. It is a baptism which 
produces death to sin, and a subsequent " walk 
in newness of life." But every one knows that 
\\\Q outward ordinance of water baptism produ- 
ces no such change in the lives of men, and 
that sj^iritual baptism does; because it is a puri- 



84 BAPTISM ; 

fication of the fountain of moral action — the 
heart. " For if we have been planted togetlier 
in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in 
the likeness of his resurrection." The word 
here translated " planted together " ((Tu/j-^bToj) 
is one that is nsed to express the situation of 
young trees or plants which have been so phint- 
ed or set as to sprout and grow together ; and 
therefore it involves the idea of intimaU union. 
It is here nsed figuratively, to signify our union 
with Christ, or conformitv to the likeness of 
Christ, in respect to his death — being ourselves 
dead to sin ; so tliat, as he arose from death, like 
the planted seed which sprouts and grows again, 
we also in like manner shall arise to a new and 
holy life. Thus we are associated with Christ 
both in death and resurrection, like seeds plant- 
ed toorether, and sproutinsrand o-rowino^ toi^ether. 
And the argument is that, [f we are thus asso- 
ciated with him in death, by virtue of our bap- 
tism — our spiritual purification — tlien we shall 
also be similarly associated witli him in a resur- 
rection to a new life ; and lience cannot " con- 
tinue in sin." The succeeding context carries 
out tliis same idea, showing plainly as language 
can, that what the apostle endeavors to establish 



ITS DESTGX. 35 

is the fact that, in our haptism,, whatever its 
mode, we become, in coinparieon with our for- 
mer state, dead to sin and alive to righteousness. 
But tliis is not true at all of the outvv'ard ordi- 
nance of water baptism, as all experience proves ; 
and yet it is eminently true of spiritual baptism, 
or purification by the Holy Ghost. To my own 
mind, therefore, it is clear that this passage has 
nothing to do with teaching the design of v/ater 
baptism ; and much less does it teach anything 
in relation to the mode of administering it. It 
says indeed that "we are buried with him, by 
baptism, into death ; " but it is by spiritual bap- 
tism — purification of the heart by tlie Holy 
Spirit — that we are buried into death to sin. 
And hence, as Christ was raised from the dead 
and lives again, so we also who have received 
this spiritual baptism shall " walk in newness 
of life." This is evidently wliat the passage 
teaches ; and this is the whole of it. It gives 
not the remotest intimation that our baptism 
with water is designed to commemorate the bu- 
rial and resurrection of Christ, or to symbolize 
that event, or even to express our faith in it. It 
is true that the fact of our baptism with water 
(Joes declare our faith in the death, burial, and 



36 BAPTij^M ; 

resurrection of Cln'ist, as also in all that lie lias 
done to save men, — not especially in one thing 
more tlian another ; — but the manner or mode 
of onr bai)tism does not ; nor is that mode at all 
indicated in this passage. The apostle does not, 
in this place, indicate either the mode or the 
design of water baptism ; and for the plain 
reason that he says nothing about it. 

Now let us look at the passage again, substi- 
tuting the vrord purify for baptize, and we shall 
see its fitness and force. " Know ye not that so 
many of us as were purified into Jesus Christ,'^ 
were puritied into his death ? [If we are thus 
spiritually joined to Christ, we are spiritually 
joined to his death.] Therefore we are buried 
with him by [our spiritual] purification, into 
death [to sin] ; that like as Christ was raised up 
from the dead by the glory of the Father, even 
so we also should walk in newness of life. For 
if we have been planted together in the likeness 
of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of 
his resurrection. Knowing this, that our old 

* This form of expression, " purified into Christ," seems to 
be used because, in spiritual puritieation, we are brought into 
spiritual union witli Christ, as branches engrafted iuto a liv- 
ing vine ; beuce, "purified into Christ." 



IT3 DESIGN. 37 

man is crucified witli liiin [by our spiritual bap- 
tism or purification,] that the body of sin 
iiiiglit be destroyed, that heiicefurth we should 
not serve sin." Here we see that the whole drift 
of tliis passage is, not 'to teacli what water bap- 
tism is intended to signify, nor how it should be 
administered ; but to sliow how our spiritual 
baptism operates to produce death to sin, and a 
new life of holiness ; and thus obviate the objec- 
tion to salvation by grace through faith, viz. 
tluit it must give license to sin. 

If it be said, as it often is, that. in our baptism 
with water, wq prof ess deatli to sin, ii\\(\ promise 
a new life of holiness, I admit it ; Imt that tliis 
is what Paul means in the passage whicli we have 
been considering cannot be admitted. Such an 
interpretation would destroy the entire force of 
the apostle's argument. How does it answer the 
objection that the doctrine of salvation by faith 
in Christ must give license to sin, by saying that, 
when we are baptized with water, ^xe j^^i^ifess to 
be dead to sin, nm\ pro?7iise to live lives of holy 
obedience ? Wliodoes not know that professions 
are often false, and promises often broken ? And 
is it to be supposed that the great apostle, after 
having sliown ^uch masterly power of argument 



38 BAPTISM ; 

in all his epistle up to this very point, would 
here broach an apparently formidable objection 
to his doctrine, and then otter to it snch a flimsy 
reply — merely saying tliat when we are bap- 
tized, we p7\)fess to die unto sin and live unto 
righteousness ? Or again, does he speak of this 
objection only for the sake of founding upon it 
an exhortation to Christians, to Met not sin reign 
in their mortal bodies ' ? If so, then he does 
not pretend to answer it at all ; but merely states 
the objection, and there leaves it unanswered, 
to perplex and worry his readers — simply tell- 
ing Christians that they have iwofessed^ in bap- 
tism, to shun the evil which he mentions as 
seeming to result so naturally from his doctrine, 
and exhortiiKj them to be true to their profes- 
sion ! Is this like Paul ? Does he usually meet 
difficulties in doctrine with such evasion ? And 
why ascribe it to him now ? Not certainly be- 
cause there is any necessity for it, only for the sake 
of maintaining what, at best, must be re^garded 
as a doubtful exegesis. Let it be understood 
that the apostle s})eaks here, not of water bap- 
tism, but of spii'itnal baptism, or the renewing 
of the Holy Ghost, and then he speaks like him- 
self, under divine inspiration ; and his argument 



ITS DE&IGls. 31) 

is full, and clear, and conclusive. I do not, 
tlierefore, hesitate to say tliat, in my opinion, 
this is the haptisin of which he speaks, and this 
is the sense of the passage under consideration. 
Tlie otiier ])assage referred to is in CoL 2 : 12, 
and is evidently intended to be parallel to tlie 
one just exaniined, only less full. The expres- 
sion, " buried with him in baptism," must receive 
the same interpretation. By being " buried with 
him " is meant, not buried in water, but buried 
to sin. The true believer is, in relation to sin, 
in a comparative sense, like one dead and buried. 
I say, in a comparative sense / because it is not 
true absolutely, but only in comparison with the 
state in wdiich he was before his spiritual bap- 
tism. Sin docs not any longer control him. lie 
has renounced it, put it away, and is, in a meas- 
nre, dead to its charms. And by being " risen 
with him, through the faith of the operation of 
God," is meant, not risen from nnder the water, 
but risen to a " newness of life " in Christ. That 
the burial and resurrection of the believer here 
spoken of, mean a burial to sin and resurrec- 
tion to a new and holy life, rather than a burial 
in water and resurrection from under water, is 
plain from the connection. Let me give the 



40 BAPTISM ; 

passage, with the verse before and after it. " la 
whom also ye are circnmcised witli tlie circum- 
cision made without hands, in putting off the 
body of the sins of the flesh b}^ the circumcis- 
ion of Clirist ; buried with him in baptism, 
wherein also ye are risen with liim, through the 
faith of the operation of God, who hath raised 
him from the dead. And you, being dead in 
your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, 
hath he quickened together with him, having 
forgiven you all trespasses." By " the circum- 
cision made without hands, in putting oft' the 
body of the sins of the flesh," is evidently meant 
regeneration by the Spirit of God. This is spir- 
itual purification. Circumcision was clearly re- 
garded as a kind of purifying ordinance ; and 
hence spiritual puriflcation or .regeneration is 
figuratively called " circumcision made without 
hands." With this circumcision, believers are 
here said to be circumcised in Christ ; and this 
idea the apostle presses by saying that, " in bap- 
tism," or spiritual puritication, previously called 
" circumcision made without hands," they are so 
far crucified to sin and delivered from its power, 
that they may properly be said to be '' buried 
with him," and with him " risen " to a new life^ 



ITS DESIGN. 41 

tlirongli faltli in tlie operation of God wlio raised 
Christ from the dead. The general idea is pre- 
cisely the same as that in Romans ; and in nei- 
ther place do I think the apostle gives any in- 
struction on thesul>ject of water baptism, either 
as to its design or mode of admhnst ration • but 
refers entirely to spiritual baptism, or purifica- 
tion by the Holy Ghost, and whicli he also calls 
" the circumcision made without hands," and 
" the circumcision of Christ." 

This exposition is fortilied by the tact that 
the same apostle repeatedly uses the word hap- 
tize in the sense which I have here supposed. 
For example; in 1 Cor. 12: 13, he says, "For 
by one Spirit are we all baj^tized into one body, 
whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; 
and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." 
To be " baptized into one body" is evidently to 
be, by baptism, joined into one body. But it is. 
not true that all who receive water baptism are 
joined into one body — certainly not into one 
spiritual body, which is doubtless the thing in- 
tended. Or, if it be alleged that by " one body" 
is meant one visible body, as the visible church, 
then I reply, This interpretatiou would make 
another clause of the passage a falsehood ; be- 



4:2 EAl'TISM ; 

cause, not all the visible clinrcli "have been 
made to drink into one Spirit," as their wide and 
antagonistic diversities of conduct and charac- 
ter too sadly testify. Ko, he refers to a ba}>tisni 
by whicli all who receive it are joined "into one 
bod}", and all made to diink into one Spirit." 
He cannot therefore mean water baptism, fur 
sncli is not the effect of water baptism ; but he 
must mean spiritual baptism, of whicli such is 
the natural and necessary effect. And indeed 
he says he means spiritual baptism. " For by 
one Spirit are we all baptized," &c. The word 
Spirit here plainly denotes the agent by whom 
the baptism is effected, and can only refer to the 
Holy Spirit. AVhat the apostle therefore affirms 
of all true Cln-istians is, tliat they are all baptized 
by one and the same Holy Spirit ; and of course 
he refers to spiritual baptism, and not baptism 
v/ith water. 

Tliere is another passage iuaGal. 3 : 27, where 
this apostle uses tlie very same expi'cssion as in 
the disputed passage in Rom. 6 : 3-5, " ba])tized 
into Chrisf," an<l wlierc he cmii^ot refer to bap- 
tism with water, bi:t must mean sj)i!-itual bap- 
tism. " For as many of you as have been bap- 
tized into Christ have put on Christ." Why 



ITS DESIGIi. 43 

does he say, "As many of you as have been 
l)aptized into Christ," if lie meant it of water 
baptism ? He was addressing the churches of 
Gahitia, whose nienibers had doubtless all been 
baptized with water. But his remark plainly 
iiuplies that not all of them had certainly been 
" baptized into Christ," as he uses the word. His 
refei-ence was therefore not to water, but spirit- 
nal baptism. And this construction of the term 
is forced upon ns by the necessity of the case, 
nnless we would make the apostle affirm what 
every one knows to be false, when he says, "As 
many as have been baj^tized into Christ have put 
on Christ." Who has yet to learn that this is 
not true in respect to water baptism ? And yet 
it is emphatically true of spiritual baptism. lie 
must therefore have reference to the latter, and 
cannot refer to the former. And this construction 
is made still more invulnerable by what he says of 
the same class of persons in the verse next prece- 
ding. " Ye are all the children of God, by faith 
in Jesus Christ." But who will dare to say that 
all who have been baptized with water are " the 
children of God by faith in Jesus Christ " ^ Cer- 
tainly not my brethren who think that to be 
"buried with Christ in baptism" means to be 



44 E API ISM ; 

burled in the water. Neither do I. And what 
then does the apostle mean by sayinii' tliat " as 
many as liave been baptized into Christ have 
put on Christ " ? To what baptism does he refer ? 
AYater baptism, as tlie reader must j^erceive, 
it cannot be ; spiritual baptism itnnist be — the 
baptism, or puriiication of the heart, by the 
Holy Spirit, through faith. 

But if the apostle is so in the habit of using 
the word haptize in this spiritual sense, then 
there is nothing constrained or unnatural in 
giving it the same sense in those passages in 
Rom., and Col. which we have beeiv considering. 
And if he uses the phrase " baptizp:d into Christ," 
here in Galatians, to signify united to Christ hj 
spiritual haptism — by pui-ification of the heart 
through faith — it is certainly reasonable to con- 
clude that he uses the very same language in 
the same sense in Rom. 6 : 3, where he says that 
''so many of us as were baptized into Jksus 
Christ, wei'e baptized into his death." And if 
lie Jtere refers, not to water baptism, but to spir- 
itual — as lie does by the same expression in 
Gahitians — tlienhe must also mean spiritual bap- 
tism in the next verse, when he says, " we are 
buried with him, b}' baptism, into death." And 



ITS DESIGN. 45 

if lie means spiritual baptism here, lie does un- 
qnestionablj mean the same thing in the paral- 
lel passage in Col. 2 : 12. '' Buried with him in 
baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him 
through the faith of the operation of God who 
hath raised liiin from the dead." 

I believe, therefore, that all the support which 
these celebrated passages have been supposed 
to give to the doctrine, that the sacrament of bap- 
tism in the Christian Church is designed to rep- 
resent the burial and resurrection of Christ, is a 
total mistake — that it results from an entire 
misapprehension of the apostle's language. It 
appears to me perfectly plain that he does not, 
in these j)assages, speak of water baptism at all ; 
and consequently gives no intimation as to the 
proper design of this ordinance, or mode of ad- 
ministering it ; but on the contrary, confines the 
idea to spiritual baptism — purification by the 
Holy Spirit — and the moral effect of this work 
in producing death to sin and life to righteous* 
ness. 

But if these passages (Rom. 6 : 3-5, and Col. 
2: 12,) do not teach that the design of water 
baptism in the Church is to represent the burial 
and resurrection of Christ, then this doctrine is 



46 BAPTisai ; 

certainly not tcinglit in the Bil)le, and onght to 
be given up. Tliere are no other Scripture pas- 
sabres to be relied on by its advocates, when 
these fail them. In truth, there was no separate 
ordinance given to represent the burial and 
resurrection of Christ ; nor was any needed, 
since these events were so closely connected 
with his death, which is represented in the 
sacred Supper. t 

Having now shown, and as I trust conclusively, 
that it is no part of the design of water baptism, 
to represent or commenjorate the burial and res- 
urrection of Christ, I observe, in the next place, 
that many suppose water baptism to be a sacra- 
ment^ hy means of vjhich the subject of it becomes 
ajpartaker of those spiritual graces which char- 
acterize the cylopted children of Qod ; and that^ 
consequently^ the design of it is to introduce us 
into the S2ri ritual family of God^ and thus make 
us heirs of salvation. The objection to this doc- 
trine arises chiefly from the fact that it is not 
true. It is not true as applied to the baptism 
of either adults or infants. 

1. It is not true as apj^lied to the baptism of 
adults. These, as every Bible reader knows, 
are never baptized by scriptural authority until 



ITS DESIGN. 47 

after they are supposed to luivo become nnitcd 
to Christ, luul C()iise<]uently to rtie spirif.uil faiu- 
ily of God, by rL^peiitaiu-e and faith. And l;c- 
\\Y^ in the exercise of *' repentance towards God 
and faith towards our Lord Jesns Clirist," tliey 
are thus partakers of the spiritual graces wliich 
characterize tlie chikh'en of God ; and tliat, too, 
before their ba})tisni, and as a prerequisite to 
their baptism. x\nd if the}^ may not be bap- 
tized with water until after they are supposed 
to have entered the spiritual family of God by 
the moral baptism of repentance and the affilia- 
ting exercise of faith in Christ, then water bap- 
tism certainly cannot be designed to introdacQ 
them into this spiritual family. And if, in any 
case, water baptism be administered to a man 
wdio had not already become a child of God by 
faith, this ordinance does not make him such, 
by whatever hands administered. Simon ]Ma- 
gus was baj)tized while in his natural state of 
estrangement from God, having only yielded an 
intellectual assent to Christianity, without the 
faith of the heart ; and Peter, under inspiration, 
declared him to be w^ithout part or lot in tlie re- 
ligion of Christ, and " in the gall of bitterness, 
find the bond of iniquity." 



48 BArxisM ; 

2. Neither is baptism, as administered to in- 
fants^ designed to introduce them into God's 
spiritual tamilj, and make them heirs of salva- 
tion. Whate\ er the Saviour designed it for, it 
doul>tless answers that design. But the melan- 
choly fact is apparent to all, that not a few bap- 
tized infants grow up to maturity without evin- 
cing any of the distinguishing traits of Christian 
character ; but, on the contrary, maintaining 
the worst propensities of their nature unchecked, 
and practically showing, to the last of life, an 
unyielding av^ersion to Christ and his cause. 
Their being baptized, therefore, does not make 
them ChristianSjin any proper sense of the term. 
It does not make them partakers of spiritual life 
in Christ, or in any degree change the moral 
state of their souls. Baptized children, as I 
hope hereafter to show, may derive great spirit- 
ual benefit from the fact of their baptism ; and 
hence it is immensely important to them. But, 
whatever its eiFect may be, it is not to renew 
their moral nature, and constitute them spirit* 
ually the children of God. The idea of effect- 
ing spiritual regeneration, whether in adults or 
infants, through the outward ordinance of bap- 
tism, so as to induce in them the exercise of 



ITS Dr.SIGN. 49 

Christian graces, and bring them into saving 
relation to Christ, is so fiir^frora finding any le- 
gitimate so|)port in the Bible, and so glaringly 
opposed to experience and observation, that it 
seems mysterious how men of sense and candor 
can believe or teach it. And yet they do, or 
something very like it. But I will only add, I 
am sorry for them. 

I will now state, in brief, what I suppose to 
be the true object or design of this ordinance. 

And first ^ the ordinance of baptism is, as I 
suppose, designed to be a visihle sign or token 
upon Jthn who receives it^ showing that he is hi 
covenant relation to God. The covenant in 
which he stands with God pledges him to walk 
before the Lord in a holy life, and also pledges 
the Lord to be his God. And baptism is the 
token of this covenant. It is also the ratifying 
seal of the covenant — closing the engagement 
between the parties, and standing as a perpet- 
ual witness to the obligation confessed. This 
view of the design of baptism is derived mainly 
from its analogy to circumcision, and from the 
perpetuity of the covenant with Abraham — 
topics which I intend to discuss in a subsequent 
chapter. 

c « 



60 BAPTISM ; 

A second design of water baptism is to repre- 
sent stjmholiGalli/ that internal 'purification of 
the soul which takes plcc^e in Tejjpnereition^ or true 
conversion to Christ j wliether considered in its 
a,spect of moral purification by repentance, or 
spiritual purification by the renewing of the 
Holy Ghost, or sacrificial, that is, legal purifica- 
tion by the application of Christ's atoning blood. 
Viewed in either of these aspects, this internal 
purification is meant to be represented to the 
eye of sense by the outward ordinance of water 
purification, or baptism. Tliat baptism is thus 
designed to be significant of internal purifica- 
tion is, I think, admitted by nearly or quite all 
classes of evangelical Christians, wliateTcr other 
designs they may believe it to have. I need 
not therefore argue this point. 

In the third place, baptism is designed as the 
rite of initiation into the visible Church of 
Christ/ so that wlioever properly receives the 
ordinance of baptism becomes thereby, in some 
sense at least, a member of the visible Church 
on earth. Tliis also is but seldom disputed, and 
may pass witliout further remark in tliis place, 
although it will be appropriately discussed in 
the closing chapter of this work. 



ITS DESIGN. 51 

These are my views, suraniarily expressed, as 
to T\-liat is the true intent of Cliristian baptism. 
I do not attempt now to argne tliem at all, be- 
cause, as 1 have said, \\\q third will be adverted 
to again in the chasing chapter, while the aecond 
is generally admitted, and the first will natu- 
rally be considered in the chapter on the x\bra- 
hamic covenant. 



CHAPTER III. 

MODE OF BAPTISM. 

In the preceding chapters, I have endeavored 
to make plain to my readers the two points 
respecting the import of the word hajptize^ and 
the design of baptism. In the first chapter it 
was shown that,although the earlier use of the 
word haptize^ or rather of the Greek haptizo^ was 
to signify the mode of an action, as immerse, 
plmige, or overwhelm, and it is generally em- 
ployed in this sense by the profane classic wri- 
ters ; yet it gradually acquired, by a natural 
law of association, another sense, denoting not 
the mode of the action, but the effect procured 
by tlie action. As the natural effect of immer- 
sion in clean water was to purify, the word hap* 
tize came at length to signify cleanse or purify. 
And at the time when the New Testament was 
written, as also wlien the Old Testament was 
translated into Greek, this word was used in both 
the original sensio of immerse^ and the derived 



BAI'TISM: 1'16 MODE. 53 

and secoiuiary sense oi' puryff/. I endeavored 
to sliow IVoni tiic Scriptures, and I think siicess- 
fiilly, tli.'i.t the sacred wi'iters adopted the latter 
signilication, and used the term in the sense-of 
piirlfi/^ without any regard to the mode of 
doing it. 

In the second chapter, it was shown that the 
design of ])aptism is not, as nian)^ suppose, to 
Rvmboh'ze or commemorate the hunal and res- 
tirrection of Christ — tliat this is no 2">art of its 
design ; nor was there any occasion for a sepa- 
rate ordinance to commemorate tliose events, 
since they were so closely connected with his 
deaths which is commemorated in the sacred Sup- 
per. Nor, again, is it the design of baptism, as 
was shown, to introduce the suhjecls of it into the 
spiritual family of God^ and make them parta- 
kers of those spiritual graces luhich helong pecid- 
iarly to God^s adopted children. 

But it was claimed that baptism witli water 
is designed as a sign or tohni of the covenant 
entered into between God and the baptized per- 
son, and to be tlie seal of that covenant — rati- 
fying the engagement, and standing as a perpet- 
ual witness to the obligation therein acknowl- 
edged ; also that it is designed to represent 



54 BAPTISM ; 

internal purification from sin by the action of 
divine igjrace, and to be the rite of initiation into 
the visible Church. 

ATe are now prepared to examine the question 
in the present chapter, What is the jp?'oper 'siodk 
of' haj}ti.sm,as a rife of the Christ koi Charchf 

And here I take the position that,«7?y foryn 
of ceremonial purification with loater^ wlien ad- 
oninistered by an authorized p)erson to a proper 
svhject^ in the name of the Father^ and of the 
Son^ and of the Holy Ghost ^ is valid Christian 
haptism. This position woukl be readily ad- 
mitted by the great body of professed Christians 
throughout the world. But there is, as every 
one knows, a not inconsiderable and very re- 
spectable class of Christians, who contend that 
immersion is the only allowable or valid mode 
of administering Christian l)aptism. I have 
no occasion or desire to dispute the validity of 
that mode ; but only to repel and disprove the 
assertion tliat the ordinance cannot be valid un- 
less administered in tliat way. If this assertion 
shall be sliown to be erraneous, tlien it will fol- 
low that other modes, as spriid^ling or pouring, 
may be lawfully adopted. My main attempt, 
therefore, in the present chapter, will be to 



ITS MODE. 00 

show that there is no scriptural authority for 
affirming that Christian baptism can be per- 
formed only by iiniiiersion. 

They who insist on immersion as the only trne 
mode of bai)tism, usually do so under the belief 
that immerse^ and on/f/ immerse, is what tlie 
word hajjtize means — that this \<^ {\\q esscrHlal 
idea of Ixijjtize — that the Greek word from 
which tliis is formed has no other signification ; — 
certainly not in relation to this ordinance of the 
Church. But we have seen that this is a total 
mistake. I feel assured that the unj^rejudiced 
reader, who has perused the first chapter of 
this book with care, so as fully to comprehend 
the argument, must pei'ceive that the true 
scHptural idea oihaptlze hpicrifij^ by whatever 
mode. The meaning of the icord^ therefore, 
does not restrict us to any particular mode ; but 
leaves entirely open the question oi rtiode^ to be 
determined by other considerations. 

The next main reliance of our brethren who 
contend for immersi')n exclusively, so far at least 
as I am acquainted, is on what, they su])po;^e to 
be iJte examjde of Chrid. And the sensitive 
conscience of the young convert is ])ressed with 
the imposing a})peal to ^'follow the example of 



56 BAPTis?ii ; 

the Saviour,-' and be "buried with Christ in 
baptism." 

IS^ow, there are three things which trutli, as I 
think, requires to be said in regard to this mat- 
ter, and which give it a very different complex- 
ion from what it wears with the advocates of 
immersion. 

1. The Bible nowhere teaches that Christ was 
" buried in baptism." The nearest thing to it 
is where it says nothing about it ; viz. in those 
passages (Kom. 6 : 4, and Col. 2 : 12,) which 
were discussed in Chapter II. The apostle, it is 
true, teaches us, in these passages, that Chris- 
tians are, in their spiritual baptism, become 
dead and buried unto si?i, as Christ died and 
was buried on account of sin : and that, as Je- 
sus was raised from the dead, even so we also 
are risen w^th him to a new life of holiness. 
"For how shall we that are dead to sin live any 
longer therein?" Hence we are said to be, in 
our baptism — meaning our spiritual purifica- 
tion -^ " buried with him," and "buried with 
him, by baptism, into death" — death to sin. 
But all this has noting to do with tlie water 
baptism of Christ, or of believers in him. 

2. The baptism of Christ was not intended as 



ITS MODE. 57 

an example for our baptism, nor does it at all in- 
dicate the true mode of baptism in the Christian 
Church. AYe know it was not administered ac- 
cording to tlie instruction wliicli he has given to 
the Church, because it was not administered 
"in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost." Christ was baptized by John 
the baptist, who did not -administer the ordinance 
in the name of the Trinity, as appears in Acts 19 : 
2, where we are told of certain believers who 
had received John's baptism, but yet had never 
heard of the Iloh^ Ghost ; — a fact which could 
not have been, had they been baptized in his 
name. It is certain, then, that Christ did not 
intend the fori,i and manner of his baptism as 
an example for ns ; because it materially dif- 
fered in form from what he has commanded us 
— not being administered in the name of the 
Trinity. 

Xor, again, did he intend the fact of his bap- 
tism as an example for us ; and we are to be 
baptized, not because Christ was baptized, but 
because he has commanded us to be. The bap- 
tism of Christ was doubtless intended as a part 
of his external consecration to the priestly office, 
which he was then about to commence excrci- 



68 BAPTISM ; 

sing for men. He liad now readied tlie age of 
thirty years, as was required by the divine hxw 
before one shor.kl enter npon the sacerdotal du- 
ties. He therefore came to John, who was 
himself a priest, the son of Zacharias the priest, 
and demanded baptism, or the ceremonial puri- 
fication which the law required in the consecra- 
tion of priests. John was surprised, and hesir 
tated to comply ; saying, " I have need to bo 
baptized of thee ; and comest tliou to me ? " 
Jesus replied, " Suffer it to be so now, for thus 
it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then 
he suffered him." But what demand of right- 
eousness required Jesus to be baptized ? It was 
not required to symbolize any professed repent- 
ance on his part, as in the case of others whom 
John baptized ; for he had no sin, and needed 
no repentance, nor did he profess any. It could 
not, as in us, be intended to represent his spirit- 
ual purification by the Holy Ghost, for he was 
always spiritually pure. AViiat righteousness, 
then, did it become him to fulfil by baptism? 
Plainly, obedience to God's righteous law. He 
was now about to commence his services as a 
priest to instruct and atone for the people of 
God. And the law required that, on entering 



ri3 MODE, 59 

upon his office, tlie priest sliould be ceremoni- 
ally purified. And Christ woukl honor the hnv 
by submitting to the ceremony , and tluis fore- 
stall the opposition of jealous and envious nien. 
The advantage which this compliance with" the 
law gave him was afterwards seen, (Matt. 21: 
2o-27,) when the chief priests and elders came 
to him,and demanded of him by what authority 
he instructed the people and performed his works 
of mercy. The reader will remember how thor- 
oughly he silenced them by referring them to 
the baptism of John, and asking them whether 
they acknowledged the divine authority of that. 
He knew tliey dared not deny it ; and yet, if 
they admitted it, they would thus be compelled 
to acknowledge the divine authority of his own 
sacerdotal acts ; because he could at once turn 
upon them and say, 'John, acting by divine 
authority, as jou acknowledge, consecrated me 
to the priesthood of the Messiah ; so,there is my 
authority, at least sufficiently to answer you.' 

This, then, was the design of Christ's baptism 
— not to be an example ior us, but to introduce 
liim regularly to the pi'Iestly office. Whatever, 
therefore, was the form or "tnode of his baptissn, 
it is not to be urged as obliging us to be baptized 



60 BAPTISM ; 

in the same vvaj. The baptism of the Christian 
chiircli was instituted after that, and for an en- 
tirely different purpose. 

3. There is no evidence that Clirist was bap- 
tized by immersion ; but rather that it was by 
sprinkling, or possibly by pouring. What, let 
me ask, is the argument by which men attempt 
to prove the immersion of Christ ? Apart from 
the meaning of the word ha^tize^ which, as to 
viode^ we have seen to be no evidence at all; 
and those passages in Romans and Colossians, 
which, as we have seen, do not touch the ques- 
tion ; I do not remember to have met with any 
other argument for Christ's immersion than such 
as I will now consider. 

(1.) In the language of our English transla- 
tion, after Christ was baptized in Jordan, he is 
^aid to have come '' up out of the water." The 
supposed proof here is in the words " out ofT 
' Why sliould he be said to have come np out of 
the water, unless he had been immersed in the 
water?' And, really, is there no other way of 
getting into the water, but to be immersed in it? 
and no other way by which one may come *' up 
out of tlie water," but by ascending from a total 
submersion in it ? What if the Bible had distinct- 



ITS MODE. Ci 

ly said that Jolui baptized by spriukb'ng'or pour- 
ing ; and that, for convenience and comfort in 
that ]iot cbmate, John stood at tlie margin of the 
"svater, with liis face towards the stream ; and 
the mnkitndes passed around in front of him in 
single file — thus stepping into the edge of the 
water — while he sprinkled, or poured from a 
cup, the water upon them ; and then, having 
been tlius baptized, they passed on " up out of 
the water" to the top of the bank : I ask, What 
if the Bible had described the, mode of John's 
baptizing just in this manner? "Would the ac- 
count of Christ's baptism, in that case, have re- 
quired the employment of dilierent phraseology 
from what is actually em])loyed ? Might it not 
have been said then, just as now, that " Jesus, 
when he was baptized, went up straightway out 
of the water?" The reader may here see how 
much soundness of argument there is in suppo- 
sing that, because Christ came " up out of the 
water," he must certainly have been immersed! 
It may not be amiss to add, that many remains 
of ancient sculpture represent John as baptizing 
in the very way which 1 have here described. 
I do not say that this was the precise form, for 
we are not told how it was done; but I do say 



63 BAPTISM ; 

that tlie language of tlie sacred narrative is quite 
as favorable to sucli a form of baptism bj John as 
to immersion ; and it is much more probably 
true, fur reasons which I will presently give. 

But it should not be omitted, that this argu- 
ment for Christ's immersion, drawn from the 
phrase " up out of the water," is peculiar to 
readers of the English Bible onlv. It is seldom, 
if ever, urged by one who reads the original 
Greek. Every such person knows there is 
nothing in it. The Greek word which is here 
translated "out of" {ajpo) more properly signi- 
fies from than out of^ and is more commonly so 
translated. If, in this place, the translation had 
been made to read, " Jesus, when he was bap- 
tized, went up straightway from the water," no 
one would ever have thought of calling it an in- 
correct rendering ; nor would any one, in that 
case, have thought of finding here an argument 
for Christ's immersion. The use of the words 
out of instead oi from proves nothing at-all. 

(2.) But Christ, it is said, was doubtless bap- 
tized in the same form as others in John's bap- 
tism; and if John did not baptize by immersion, 
why did he go to the river Jordan, and to " Enon, 
near to Salim, because ther*^ was much water 



ITS MODE. 63 

tliere " ? I am very ready to admit that Christ 
Avas probably baptized in the same form as oth- 
ers in John's baptism ; and yet I see no necessi- 
ty for suj^posing he was immersed, or that John 
immersed any one. Tlie ministry of John was 
attended by vast multitudes, many of whom 
came from a great distance, and doubtless with 
their beasts of burden. And on the supposition 
that he baptized by sprinkling or })Ouring, it 
must have been very convenient, to say the 
least, to select a location where the immense 
throng, with all their beasts might be comfort- 
ably supplied with an article so necessary in a 
hot climate as water. This is certainly reason 
enough why he should have selected such loca- 
tions, w^ithout supposing he baptized by immer- 
sion. Xo argument, therefore, can be drawn, 
from the fact that John selected such places for 
his baptizing, in favor of the idea that he im- 
mersed his disciples. The most that it would 
prove in that direction is, that he coidd have im- 
mersed if he had seen lit ; — at least, lie had water 
enough. But it also proves as well, that he 
could have -sprinlied or poured ; and although, in 
that case, he might not have needed so much wa- 
ter for the administration of baptism, yet he 



64 

would liave needed it for the convenient accom- 
modation of tlic immense crowds of people, with 
their thirsty animals. 

We have, then, no real evidence that John 
ever immersed any one. There is none in the 
meaning of the word hajytize j there is none in 
the proper design of Cln-istian ])aptism ; there is 
none in the Ian2:ua2:e of our translation, statins: 
that Jesus, when he was baptized, " went up 
straightway out of the water ; " and there is 
none in the selection of Jordan and Enon as the 
places for administering his baptism. Not one 
of these things, as the reader must plainly per- 
ceive, affords the slightest evidence that he im- 
mersed, any more than that he sprinkled or 
poured. Xot one of them makes it even ^yroha- 
Me that he employed immersion rather than 
sprinkling or pouring. Where, then, I ask, is 
the j)roof that Christ was baptized by immer- 
sion ? There is plainly none at all. And it is 
amazing, that good and sensible men can be so 
blind or so rash as to assume boldly that he teas 
immersed ; and then add to the assumption the 
monstrous untruth, that tlie young convert is 
required,in baptism, to "follow the example of 
the Saviour, and be buried in a watery grave ! " 



ITS MODE. bJ 

But if I be asked whether there is anything 
hi the Scriptures to indicate tlie probable mode 
of Christ's ]>aptisin, I ans\Yer, To my own mind, 
there certainly is. I will present it, and the 
reader can allow it whatever weight he may 
think it entitled to. If the baptism of Christ 
was, as there seems no good reason to doubt, 
designed to be a part of his external consecra- 
tion to the priesthood of the Messiah, in honor 
of the divinely enacted statute, and 'thus it be- 
came him to fulhl all righteousness,' then we 
have instruction touching both the reason why 
he was baptized, and the mode of his baptism. 
By a reference to Exod.is '2d : 4, the reader will 
see that the law re(iuireil the priests to be washed 
or purified with water before entering on their 
priesthood. ''Ajid Aaron anl his sons thou 
shalt bring unto the door of tiie tabernacle, and 
shalt wash them with water." Accordingh^, 
"vvlien the Saviour was abo it to comuience his 
public ministry, he wislied to honr)r tliis recpiire- 
ment of tlie law, and l)e washed, or purified. 
John was fully co!ii[)etent to do it, being him- 
self a Levire, the son of Zacharias. And there 
was a special fitness in the Saviour's going to 
liim; because he was the divinely appointed 

6 



forerunner of Christ, a prophet, and not excelled 
in greatness bj any of woman born. Hence the 
Saviour went to him and demanded this cere- 
mony of the law. Xow, if we can ascertain in 
what manner this wasliing under the law was 
performed, it will be fair to infer that Clirist 
was washed or purified in the same manner. 
As the Lord would have it, we are not left' 
wholly in the dark on tliis point. A little fur- 
ther along — in Numbers S: T, the needed in- 
formation is found. In giving charge concern- 
ing the ceremony, of wasliing or cleansing the 
Levites, the Lord says to Moses, "And thus 
shall tliou do unto them to cleanse them ; 
SPRINKLE water of ])urifying upon them.'' Xow, 
tell me if there is nothing here to indicate the 
mode of Christ's baptism. Baptism, be it re-" 
membered, is ceremonial purification. Christ 
would "fulfil all righteousness " by complying 
with this requirement of the law, when about to 
commence liis pu])lic ministry. The hiw de- 
manded tliat the priests, in their consecration, 
should l>e waslied, cleansed, or pui'ified with 
water. Accordingly Chi-ist went to Jolm to bo 
thus ceremonially cleansed; — in other words, 
to be baptized. But in what manner should it 



II'S MODK. 67 

be peril n'liiod ? The law declares it shall be 
done by spnnldbifj. I will leave the reader 
now to judge whether it is probable that Christ 
ol)e3'ed this instruction and was sprinkled, or 
whether he departed from it and was immersed. I 
am, however, free to declare it as my own solemn 
conviction, that Christ was baptized b}^ sprink- 
ling. And yet I do not believe it aftects the 
main qnestion - now before us in the least, 
Avhether he was baptized in tlie one way or the 
other. It is worth nothino- at all in settlino^ the 
question about the proper mode of baptism in 
the Christian Church. As I have before shown, 
the baptism of Christ was not intended to be an 
example for our baptism — it being performed 
for a purpose totally different from ours, and be- 
fore the baptism of the Christian Church was 
ijistituted. And I am accustomed to adminis- 
ter the ordinance by sprinkling, not because I 
believe Christ was sprinkled; but because, in 
tlie absence of specific instruction on the sub- 
ject, I believe Christ has given his ministers the 
general command to baptize ; while baptism is 
purification, and sprinklijig is a mode of ]>uriti- 
cation abundantly recognized in the Scriptures, 
and therefore valid. It is also convenient and 



68 



UAI'TJSM ; 



safe in all countries, in all weatlier, and in all 
conditions of 1)odi] v liealth ; — which can hardly 
be said of baptism hy any other mode. 

^Vc will now pass, and consider the case of 
the Ethiopian eunuch's baptism by Philip. It 
is by many cojifidently afhi-nied that here was 
an instance of immersion, beyond any reasona- 
ble doubt. But much as I respect and esteem 
many of the men who hold this opinion, I must 
confess tliat I am not able to awaken in my own 
mind any yery particular respect for the opin- 
ion itself. And yet, because so many embrace 
and teach it, it requires attention. The scene is 
described in Acts 8: 38, 39. '^ind he com- 
manded the chariot to stand still. And they 
went down both into the water, both Phib'p and 
the eunuch ; and he baptized him. And when 
they were come up out of the water, tlie Spirit 
of the Lord cauglit away Philip, that the eunuch 
saw^ him no more." ]S"ow, the entire eyidence . 
of this man\s haying been bapti;ied by immer- 
sion, and all that is urged by its strongest advo- 
cates, apart from the meaning of the word Ixfjj- 
iize, is found in the fiict of their leaying the 
chariot and stepping to the water, and. in the 
use of the English prepositions into and out of. 



TTS MODE. 69 

First, it is said that "a small quantity of water 
iniglit easily liave been handed them, and the 
ordinance administered withont tlie inconveni- 
ence of descer.ding from the chariot, if a small 
quantity wonld Iiave sufficed." So it miglit, 
undoubtedly, if that had been deemed desirable ; 
for very probably there may have been, in the 
baggage of the eunuch, some vessel in which a 
servant could have dipped up and handed to 
the chariot as much water as would have suf- 
ficed for sprinkling or pouring. But would that 
have been the most natural way of proceeding? 
Surely the eunuch was not then in a state of 
mind to stand upon his dignity, and refuse to 
leave his carriage to receive the sacrament of 
baptism. And besides, after a long ride over a 
desert road, on arriving wliere was water, it 
would seem to be a not unpleasant relief to get 
upon the feet and step to the fountain or stream. 
If 1 had been in the place of Philip, with my 
present views and feelings, and he had desired 
me to baptize him, instead of having a servant 
get out a cup and hand up the water for me to 
baptize him sitting in his carriage, I would have 
had him get out, and, stepping with me down 
to the water, there reverently stand or kneel be- 



70 

fore God, with liead vmcovored, wliile I baptized 
Liiii '' in tlie name of tlie Fatlier, and of the Son, 
and of tlie Holy Ghost." xYnd jnst so, I doubt 
not, any Pj'esbytcrian minister would have done. 
Hence it is not so "unnatural" as some afiirm, 
to suppose that, for the purpose of baptism by 
sprinkling or pouring, he got out of his carriage, 
and received the ordinance in a reverential man- 
ner, rather than that lie maintained his seat in 
the chariot, bolstered np by liis dignity. How 
far, therefore, the circumstance of getting out of 
his carriage and stepping to the water goes to 
prove that he inust hive heen immersed^ is a 
question that I will not further pursue. 

But the main reliance, in this passage, by the 
advocates of exclusive immersion, is on the prep- 
ositions "'/;?/^>" and ^' out of^^ It is said in tho 
text tliat they both went down into the water; 
and after the baptism, thej^ came up out <>f\\\Q wa- 
ter. This is precisely parallel to what is said in 
connection Avith Christ's baptism, and affords tho 
same sort of argument. "And Jesus, when he 
was })aptized, went \v^ straightway out of the 
water." And need I say again, that going into 
the water, and coming out rv/* the water, do not 
necessarily imply a total immersion ? Nothing 



ITS MODE. 71 

is proved by such expressions. There is reason 
enongli why they may have stepped into tlie 
vatei", in tluit parched and sultry reuion, witli 
only sandals on their feet, for the pnrpf<se of 
baptism even by sprinkling or ponring ; without 
its being necessary to suppose that a total im- 
mersion was the object aimed at. There is no 
intimation of any disrobing, or changing of rai- 
ment on the occasion ; — a silence quite as sig- 
nificant against immersion, as going into and 
coming out of the Avater is in favor of it. But 
in truth, there is no proof in either. And still 
more utterly destitute of force, if possible, are 
these prepositions, for the purpose of proving 
immersion, when we look at them in the lan- 
guage in wdiich Luke wrote them. I feel safe 
in saying that no reader of the Greek Testament, 
in private discussion with another who is known 
also, to read it, will ever have the effrontery to 
urge these expressions, ''^into the watei'," and 
''^ out of i\\Q water," as proof that the eunuch 
was immersed. For the information of such of 
my readers as may need it, let me say that, 
when it is said they went down into the water, 
the Greek word for into, is eis ; and when it is 
said they came up out of the water, the Greek 



72 BAPns:.! ; 

word for out of is eli. Xow these words, eis 
and cl\ are both extrenielv viiriable in their sig- 
iriiications ; and if the transhitors had expressed 
eis hy the English word to^ and ek by the Eng- 
lisli \\OY(\fro7n^ it would liave been j:)erfectly in 
accordance with the habitual meaning of these 
words ; and no one would then have thought of 
doubting the accuracy of the translation any 
more than now. They often mean i7ito and out 
of^ and they often mean to and from^ and they 
often have other meaning3,according to the con- 
nection in which they stand. But supposing 
the translators had seen lit to express them by 
to and from, tlie passage would then have read 
as follows : " And they w^eut down both to the 
water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he bap- 
tized him. And when ihey were come up from 
the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away 
Philip that the eunuch saw him no more.'* 
"Who would ever have quoted this as a proof 
text for immersion, if that had been the way it 
read? And yet it w^ould have been quite as 
true to the original as it is now. There is, then, 
plainly no proof at all in these words, respecting 
the mode of the eunuch's baptism. In order to 
show from this passage €ven a j^robahiLity for 



ITS MODE. 73 

immersion in preference to any otlier mode, it 
needs to be shown that these terms must neces- 
sarily be translated by into and out of — that, 
in such a connection, they can be rightly ex- 
pressed by nothing else. But it would be amu- 
sing to see a Greek scholar attempting this. 
Let me give some examples showing the use of 
these prepositions by the inspired writers. Take, 
in the first place, eis^ here translated into^ and 
see just hoio necessary it is that it should ahvays 
be read i7ito, and nothing else. Matt. 12 : 41. 
" They repented eis the preaching of Jonah " — 
at the preaching — certainly not into the preach- 
ing of Jonah. Luke 11 : 49. " I will send eis 
them prophets and apostles" — I will send to 
them — not into them, prophets and apostles. 
John 11 : 38. " Jesus therefore groaning within 
himself, cometh eis the grave " — to the grave — 
not into the grave. John 21 : 4. " Jesus stood 
eis the shore " — on the shore — not into the 
shore. These are only a few of the many exam- 
ples which might be given, showing how pre- 
posterous it is to suppose eis can mean nothing 
but into, and that the passage could not be law- 
fully translated otherwise than it is. I have 
had the curiosity to count the number of instan- 



74 BAPTISM ; 

ces in wlilch tlie preposition eis is used in this 
single chapter containing the account of the eu- 
nuch's baptism ; and to observe how, in each in- 
stance, it is traushited in our English Bible. 
And what does the reader think is the result ? 
I find the word used in this chapter eleven times. 
Once it is translated into / twice it is in / once 
it is at ; once it is with / once it is unto / and 
FIVE TIMES it is TO. The single instance where 
it is rendered into is in the case of the eunuch's 
baptism. By what authority, then, does any 
one contend that this word eis must necessarily 
mean into rather than to; and upon this as- 
sumption that they went^n^<? the water, attempt 
to maintain that the eunuch was immersed? 
For my own part, I do not believe they stepped 
foot into the water, unless it was for the comfort 
of the thing. The most fair and legitimate read- 
ing of the passage would be, " They went down 
both to the water." 

The same kind of reasoning might be had on 
the word ek^ here translated out of. With quite 
as much propriety might it have been rendered 
from., and the passage have been made to read, 
"And when they were come up from the 
water," &c. To show the reader that elc does 



ITS MODE. 75 

not necessarily always mean out of^ but may 
also mean froin^ and that it might properly have 
been so rendered in this passage, I will only re- 
fer to two or three examples, taken from a mul- 
titude that might be given, wliere it mud be 
translated frorn^ and not out of. John 19 : 12. 
" And(^^) from tlienceforth Pilate sought to re- 
lease him." Who w^ould here say, ' And out of 
thenceforth?' John 19: 23. " E'ow the coat 
was without seam, w^oven {eli) fT07ii the top 
throughout." Who would read-it, 'woven out 
of the top throughout ? ' John 20 : 21. " The 
first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene 
early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, 
and seeth the stone taken away {elc) from the 
sepulchre." Who dare say it should read, 'out 
of the sepulchre,' when we know the stone was 
placed only at the door of the sepulchre ? Sucli 
examples may suffice to show the plain English 
scholar that, althongh eh is here translated out 
of., it is not necessarily so; but might just as 
well and as truly have been rendered from as 
out of. And I say again that, if the translators 
had made the passage read, " And they went 
down both to the water, both Philip and the 
eunuch ; and he baptized him. And when they 



76 

were come up from the water, the Spirit of the 
Lord caught away Philip," it would have been, 
quite as accurate a translation as it is now ; and 
hence there is not a particle of evidence in this 
passage that they even wet their feet. Where, 
then, is the proof, afforded by this example of 
Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, showing that 
immersion is the only valid mode of baptism ? 
In respect to the baptism of the three thou- 
sand on the day of Pentecost, mentioned in the 
second chapter of Acts, I do not deny that the 
apostles might possibly have accomplished it by 
immersion, if they had easy access to a sufficient 
number of baths to keep them all emplo^'-ed, to- 
gether with all the conveniences which modern 
ingenuity has devised to facilitate the operation. 
But it should be remembered that it was al- 
ready about nine o'clock in the morning when 
Peter began his sermon. How long the dis- 
course with other exercises lasted, we do not 
know ; but it is doubtful if the baptizing com- 
menced much before noon. Then they must 
have baptized, on an average, two hundred and 
fifty persons each — a pretty large half-day's 
work, if it was all done by immersion. But 
where did they get their conveniences for im- 



lis MODI-:. ,7 

inersiiig so large a iianiber 'i The little brook 
Kedrou did not accommodate tliem. This no, 
one pretends. The piibh'c baths of the city were 
nut Hkelv to be open to them for such a purpose ; 
ov if open, it is not probable that they could 
have occupied them unmolested — hated as was 
this sect by the great body of the inhabitants, 
as well as by the public authorities. And yet, 
if immersion was the way, with no previous ar- 
rangements, (for all this was sudden, and unex- 
pected to every one,) they must all at once have 
found themselves in possession of pools or baths 
sufficient to enable twelve men to immerse each 
two hundred and iifty persons that very afternoon ; 
while the narrative does not intimate that they 
left the place where they were assembled. ]^ow 
I put it to tlie reader's candor. Is this probable ? 
I do not say it is impossible — there is no need 
of affirming that. But is it likely ? And what 
would be gained, even by jproving that the three 
thousand mnjht all have been that day im- 
mersed ? It would only make the thing j)ossi- 
lU I while it would still be just as possible, and 
a great deal more ^jrohahle^ tliat they were bap- 
tized in some other way. But let it be supposed 
that they were purified by sprinkling or pour- 



78 BAPTISM ; 

ing, and the whole transaction becomes perfect- 
ly easy and credible. So ftir, therefore, as this 
examj)le throws any light at all on the mode 
of baptism, it is in favor of sprinkling or pour- 
ing rather than of immersion. 

The record of Pcnd^s baptism, also, loolcs^ to 
say the least, as if he were baptized in some 
simpler form than by immersion. It is in Acts 
9 : 17, 18. " And Ananias went his way, and 
entered into the house ; and putting his hands 
on him, said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, 
that appeared unto thee in the way as thou 
earnest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive 
thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 
And immediately there fell from his eyes as it 
bad been scales ; and he received sight forth- 
with, and arose and was baptized." I^ow this 
certainly looks as if, immediately on receiving 
his sight, he arose from his seat or couch, and 
was baptized without leaving the room. But 
if so, is it not altogether more probable that he 
was i)urified by sprinkling or pouring than by 
immersion? I do not affirm that immersion in 
this case was impossible. If the Bible explicitly 
taught that immersion was the only true and 
valid mode of baptism, I might conjecture ex- 



ITS MODE. 79 

pedlents enougli, perliaps, to make this account 
consistent with the idea of Paul's having been 
immersed. But as it is, why should we feel 
called upon to task our ingenuity in any such 
way ? Why not take the narrative as it reads, 
and adoj^t the idea which lies on its face ? That 
idea, I hesitate not to say, is quite unfriendly to 
the doctrine of immersion ; but with sprinkling 
or pouring it is entirely harmonious. 

So in the case of the Philippian jailer, (Acts 
16 : 23.) This man was convicted of sin in the 
night by the miraculous opening of the prison 
where Paul and Silas were confined ; and was 
immediately converted under their instruction ; 
and " the same hour of the night" was baptized. 
Kow, since the word Ijaptize means in the Scrip- 
tures, neither immerse, sprinkle, or pour ; but 
purify : — and since there is nothing in the de- 
sign of tlie ordinance which requires immersion, 
wdiat is there, I ask, in this case of the jailer to 
indicate purification by immersion rather than 
by sprinkling or pouring ? There is no mention 
of river, pool, or bath, in the narrative — nothing 
which would lead us to suppose thej^ left the 
prison w^alls ; for it appears, from the account, 
that he did not even bring Paul and Silas into 



80 ijAi'TiSM ; 

his house until after bis baptism. If tbis had 
been a palace, it might be said there was proba- 
bly a bath connected with the establishment, 
where the immersion was had. But it was a 
lieathen prison, and not therefore very likely to 
be supplied with such a luxury. I do not, in- 
deed, deny the j[>ossihility of there having been 
a bath at hand, and of the jailer and his family 
liaving been immersed. But since nothing about 
it is said in the narrative, does it look probable ? 
And even if there had been every possible con- 
venience for immersion ; and if these servants 
of God, whipped as they were only the day be- 
fore almost to death, had been in a bodily con- 
dition to admit of their immersing this family, 
it would still remain to be proved that they ac- 
tually did administer the ordinance by immer- 
sion, rather than by sprinkling or pouring. 
Such proof is nowhere to be found ; while all 
the circumstances just adverted to, favor the 
idea of sprinkling or pouring rather than of im- 
jnersion. 

I will next observe. It is a fact of no trifling 
importance in this dicussion, that tlie baptism 
of the lioly Ghost, of which water baptism is 
meant to be symbolical, is represented, never by 



ITS .^EODE. 81 

immersion, but by pouring. Tlie Spirit is said 
to be poured upon men. His divine influence 
is represented as coining dmon on the subject 
whom he baptizes. 

Again, it is important to observe that* the sac- 
rificial purification of the soul b j the eflicacy of 
Christ's blood, which is also represented by 
water baptism, is expressed by sprinkling. In 
1 Pet. 1 : 2, believers are said to be " elect . . 
unto obedience, and spkin^kling of the blood of 
Jesus Christ." In Heb. 12 : 24, it is said, " We 
are come ... to the blood of sprinkling, 
that speaketh better things than that of Abel." 
Heb. 10 : 22. " Having our hearts sprinkled 
from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed 
with pure water:" — thus expressing both the 
internal purification with the blood of Christ, 
and the external purification with water. And 
since the internal purification is figuratively 
said to be by sprinkling^ it is fair to infer that 
the external washingj or symbolical purifying, 
is by sprinkling also. 

IS'ow, let me ask again. Where is the proof 
that immersion is the only valid mode of bap- 
tism ? It certainly is not in the meaning of the 
word haptize. In Chapter I, I have, as I think, 

D* 6 



82 BAPrisii ; 

fully proved that to be, frequently^ at least, 
when used by the inspired writers, not immerse 
— not sprinkle — not pour; but ])urify^ having 
no regard to the mode. 

ISTor is the proof of immersion, as the only 
valid mode of baptism, to be found in any de- 
sign of the ordinance to represent the Jnivial and 
Tesiirrection of Christ ; for I have, in Chapter 
II, shown that it has no such design ; and that 
all which is said by our brethren about being 
" buried with Christ in baptism,'' and " being 
buried with him, by baptism, into death ; " or 
being " planted in the likeness of his death ; " 
and about being '' also in the likeness of his re- 
surrection," when urged in support of this al- 
leged design of the ordinance, or of immersion 
as its only mode, is a mere begging of the ques- 
tion, but proving nothing. I have shown, as I 
believe unanswerably, that the passages of 
Scripture here alluded to, make no reference 
whatever to water baptism — either the baptism 
of Christ or of his Church ; — that it is entirely 

* See Dr. Edward Beeclier's book, entitled " Baptism, its 
Import and Modes," wherein the author demonstrates that 
the sacred writers use the word baptize, not only frequently, 
but alwai/.% in the sense of 'purify. 



ITS MODE. 83 

of spiritual baj)tism tliat tliey treat — a baptism 
which produces death to sin and life to right- 
eousness. 

JSTor, again, is there any proof of immersion 
in the terms employed to describe the baptism 
of Christ or the eunuch ; as going down hito tlie 
water, and coming up out of the water. And 
besides, as it resj^ects the baptism of Christ, I 
have shown, in the early part of this chapter, 
that, in whatever way it was administered, it 
was not meant to be an example for us ; but was 
intended for a totally different purpose, and oc- 
curred hefore the Saviour instituted the form of 
baptism for his Church. Hence believers are 
no more properly called upon to " follow Christ 
in baptism " than to follow him in eating, drink- 
ing, and sleeping. Christ ate, drank, and slept ; 
and we too are to eat, drink, and sleep ; but not 
particularly because he did, or in imitation of 
his example. So Clirist was baptized ; and we 
also ought to be baptized ; but not particularly 
because he was, or to imitate liis example ; but 
because he has commanded it. The Saviour 
never meant his baptism to be any example for 
ours ; although it was probably performed by 
sprinkling, and not by immersion. 



8i BAPTISM ; 

^NTor yet again, is the proof of immersion, as 
the only true mode, to be found in the cirmim- 
stanccs connected with any of the recorded ex- 
amples of baptism. Tliere are no cases of bap- 
tism recorded in the ^New Testament where cir- 
cumstances are mentioned which point more 
decidedly to immersion as the mode than those 
w^hich I have considered ; — none on which the 
advocates of immersion so mnch rely. And the 
reader can now jndge whether, in either of these 
cases, the circumstances are such as to show that 
immersion, and nothing else, must have been the 
mode ; or whether they are such as give preference 
to some simpler mode, as sprinkling or pouring. 

And where, I once more ask, in all the word 
of God, is the proof that Christian baptism can 
be lawfully administered only by immersion ? 
There is none. I confidently declare to the en- 
quiring reader, there is none. And if the word 
of God furnishes no proof to this effect, who is 
authorized to set up this particular mode of bap- 
tism before the Church, and say, " This or 
nothing " f Although I do not call in question 
the ability or honesty of the men who do it, yet 
I must question their prudence and accuracy ; 
and I covet not their responsibility. 



V 



ITS MODE. 85 

I am calling to acknowledge immersion to be 
a valid mode of baptism ; yet not because it is 
'hnmersion^ but because it is a mode of ceremo- 
nial purifiGation. And just so I regard sprink- 
ling 2iVL^ lyou ring as valid modes of baptism ; »ot 
because they are sprinkling or pouring, but 
because tbey are authorized modes of ceremo- 
nial purification. And since the great Head of 
the Church has not definitely taught us which 
of these modes we shall adopt — having only 
commanded us to purify or baptize, — every 
branch of the Church is clearly at liberty to 
elect its own mode ; though bound to respect 
the modes elected by others. And every be- 
liever may unite himself to the Church where 
he can receive the ordinance in that mode which 
best satisfies his own conscience ; and having 
done so, no one has any scriptural authority to 
deny the validity of his baptism. 



CHAPTER IV. 

mrANT BAPTISM OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 

The Cliurcli was infested with many false 
prophets before the apostles were in their graves. 
To fortify her against their errors of doctrine 
and practice, was a prominent object contem- 
plated in the apostolic epistles. Their inspired 
authors enjoin the strictest carefulness against 
the reception of error. Paul especially charges 
the Church to " prove all things." He would 
have Christians bring every religious doc- 
trine to the test of reason and the word of God ; 
and not feel themselves at lil)erty, on the one 
hand, to receive every thing which might be 
taught ; nor, on the other, to reject every thing 
that might be condemned. They were required 
to examine every religious topic with care, and 
whatever should abide the ordeal of sober rea- 
son and divine revelation, they were instructed 
to " hold fast," as " that which is good." 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 87 

The same principle should govern the Church 
now. There is much diversity of doctrinal sen- 
timent abroad, whose abettors claim to be di- 
vinely taught. And no man is at liberty to take 
without examination vvdiatever may be declared 
to be the word or the will of God. We cannot 
throw off the obligation to employ our own pow- 
ers in the investigation of truth and duty — to 
" prove all things," under the guidance of the 
Bible, and with such other helps as we can ob- 
tain. And when, upon any point, we have once 
ascertained the truth, we must " hold it fast ; " 
and not suffer it to be Vv-rested from us, or our- 
selves to be drifted away from it, "by every 
wind of doctrine " that blows. The doctrines of 
the Bible ought to be firmly rooted in our hearts 
and minds ; as they can be only by the labor 
of careful and prayerful research. 

These remarks are intended as preliminary to 
an application of their spirit to the doctrine of 
Infant Baptism; tlie discussion of which I de- 
sign to open in the present chapter, by inquiring 
vjhether the Scriptures contain anything adverse 
to imfant haptism. 

That there is any express ptrohibition of this 
practice in the Bible, is not pretended, even by 



88 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

those who most strenuously oppose it. The 
Scriptures nowhere contain such a prohibition. 
The argument against infant baptism, so far as 
it professes to be founded on the Scriptures, is 
obtained wholly by implication and inference. 
And yet I would by no means object to it on 
this ground. If a doctrine, duty, or prohibition 
is fairly imjjliecl in any passage of Scripture, or 
derived by legitimate inference^ it is taught no 
less certainly and authoritatively than if it were 
directly affirmed. This must be so, if all the 
parts and forms of truth are consistent with 
each other. And, surely, no sound mind will 
deny that truth is liarmonious throughout all 
its ramifications. If then, it can be shown, 
by any legitimate inference or implication, that 
the Scriptures discountenance infant baptism, 
we must accept it as divine authority against 
the practice. 

I am not aware of more than three forms in 
which the opposers of infent baptism have ever 
supposed it to be forbidden in the word of God. 
These forms are the following. 

1. It is alleged that the Scriptures require 
faith and repentance as prerequisites to hap- 
tism; hut infants cannot repent and helieve ; 



OBJECTIONS OONSIDEEED. 89 

and hence, it is said^ tliej ought not to be bap- 
tized. 

2. It is affirmed that there is no dire<it and 
jpositive jprecept enjoining infant 'haptiam ; and 
that hence it is unauthorized, and by silence 
forbidden. 

3. It is' said that there is no clear and indis- 
putable example of infant baptism recorded in 
the Scriptures ', and that, consequently, we are 
not to believe it was practiced in the apostolic 
churches, especially since it is not expressly 
commanded. 

I believe this is a jDerfectly fair representation 
of all that the Bible is supposed to teach against 
the practice of infant ba])tism. 

I will, therefore, proceed to examine these 
several statements in their order. 

1, It is alleged that the Scriptures require 
faith and repentance as prerequisites to bap- 
tism / but infants cannot repent and believe / 
and hence, it is said, they ought not to be bap- 
tized. 

But of whom, let me ask, do the Scriptures 
require faith and repentance in order to bap- 
tism ? Of adults? or of infants? or of both ? 
Do they require these affections of adults? 



90 iNFAXT baptism; 

Yes, and so do Presbyterians, and most otlier 
pedo-baptists. We never baptize adults, except 
on their profession of faitli and repentance. But 
do the Scriptures require the same of infants ? 
Certainly not, since they are incapable of faith 
and repentance. And neither do we, for tlie 
same reason. But do the Scriptures anywhere 
forbid baptism to infants on account of their 
being incapable of repentance and faith ? Never, 
anywhere ; and neither do we. But do not the 
Scriptures teach that none should be baptized, 
excepting them who repent and believe ? No- 
where in the Bible is such a sentiment taught. 
Tlie nearest thing to it which the Bible teaches 
is, that adult ])ersons should believe and repent 
before being baptized. But surely this is a very- 
different thing from teaching that 110 one^ adult 
or infant, must be baptized without having per- 
sonally repented and believed. The Bible teaches 
that adidt persons must repent and believe in 
order to be saved ; but tliis is a different matter 
from teaching that no one, adult or infant, can 
be saved w^ithout repentance and faith. The 
same is true in respect to baptism. 

"When the baptism of adults is spoken of, it is 
commonly mentioned in connection with their 



OBJECTIONS (;ONSIDERi:i). 91 

faith or repentance ; as in Acts 2 : 38, 41. " Then 
Peter said unto them, Repent and he baptized, 
every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for 
the remission of sins. . . Then they that gladly 
received his word were baptized." Also in 
Acts 8 : 12. " But when they believed Philip 
preaching the things concerning the kingdom 
of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were 
baptized, both men and women." Again in 
Acts 8 : 37, Philip replies to the eunuch when 
proposing to be baptized, "If thou believest 
w^ith all thine heart, thou mayest." These and 
other similar passages show conclusively that, 
when adults are to be baptized, there must be 
evidence, at least by their profession, that they 
have repentance toward God and faith in the 
Lord Jesus Christ. These passages, however, are 
often cited to show that 7i07ie should be baptized 
except on a personal profession of their faith 
and repentance. But they prove no such thing. 
They speak only of adults, and make no allusion 
to the case of infants. They do not, therefore, 
touch the question whether infants, who cannot 
repent and believe, are to be baptized; All 
these cases of baptism are precisely such as 
would have occurred,in the same circumstances, 



92 INFANT BAPTIS?.[ ; 

if a modern Presbj^terian minister had acted in 
the place of Peter or Philip. In every case of 
adult baptism, such as these passagi^s refer to, 
we insist on repentance and faith in the 'subject. 
But the question about the baptism of infants is 
a totally dili'erent matter, a!id must be decided 
by other testimony, since this has no relation to 
the case. We know that, in the great Commis- 
sion, Christ says, " He that helieveth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved." And from this it is often 
argued that believing is required in order to 
baptism ; and that no exception is made in favor 
of infants. But I reply that, although no ex- 
ception in the case of infants is e^rpressed^ yet it 
is evidently implied^ and did not need to be ex- 
pressed ; because the Saviour speaks here of 
^such as are capahle of telieviiig, and not of in- 
fants. 

But if any will have it that, because infants 
are not expressly excepted, therefore they are 
excluded from baptism, since they cannot be- 
lieve ; then I reply that, by the same rule of in- 
terpretation, infants are excluded from salvation, 
since they cannot believe ; for it is said in the 
very same breath, " He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth 



OBJIiCTIONS CONSIDEKED. 93 

not shall be dainned." N'ow, how can one who 
maintains that, because infants cannot believe 
they must not be baptized, escape the parallel 
that, because infants cannot believe they must 
not be saved. Let the question be asked, Who 
are to be baptized ? and many of our brethren, 
reasoning from this passage, answer, " They 
who believe." But we ask them. Does that ex- 
clude infants from baptism ? " Yes," say they, 
"because infants do not believe." Well, we 
advance a step further, and ask. Who are to be 
saved ? Our brethren must answer, " They who 
believe and are baptized." But we ask again, 
Does that exclude infants from salvation ? To 
be consistent with themselves, they must say, 
"Yes, because infants do not believe, and must 
not be baptized." Well, who shall be damned ? 
" They who do not believe ; for Christ says, 
' He that belie veth not shall be damned.' " But 
-we ask. Does that include infants? By the 
same sort of reasoning, the answer should be, 
" Yes, because infants do not believe." 

IS'ow, I do not mean to insinuate that our 
brethren who differ from us on this subject really 
believe that infants are not saved. But to this 
sad conclusion we are inevitably forced by the 



94: INFANT BAPTISM ; 

argument wliicli would exclude tliem from bap- 
tism on the ground tliat tliey do not believe. 
But the truth is that, in this passage, infants are 
not referred to at all ; and it proves neither the 
one thing iior the other, in relation to their bap- 
tism or their salvation. The Saviour here 
speaks only of adults, who are capable of be- 
lieving; and no more teaches that infants are 
not to be baptized, than he does that they are 
not to be saved. There is, therefore, no force 
whatever in any argument against infant bap- 
tism which is grounded on those passages of 
Scripture which speak of repentance and faith 
as necessary prerequisites to the ordinance. 
Those passages, I repeat, all refer to adults only 
— not to infants at all ; and if they prove that 
infants must not be baptized, they prove with 
equal certainty that they must all be damned. 
But of little children Christ has said, " Of such 
is the kingdom of heaven." 

2. It is affirmed that there is qio direct and 
positive ])reGe])t .enjoin ing infant 'baptism / and 
that hence it is unauthorized, and by silence for- 
bidden. But this argument is a bad mie for two 
reasons, as I will now endeavor to sliow. 

(1.) It is bad because, if admitted, it would 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 95 

prove quite too much ; and therefore, in fact, it 
proves nothing. The argument is this: — Be- 
cause there is no express precept enjoining in- 
fant baptism, therefore infants must not be bap- 
tized. It should be observed here, that they 
who use this argument will admit no evidence 
obtained by inference, however fair; or by anal- 
ogy, however close; or by implication, however 
perfect. Nothing else than a j^ositive precept^ 
enjoining the duty of baptizing the infants of be- 
lieving parents, or an indiibitaUe example of such 
baptism, will satisfy them. If they would ac- 
cept proof in any other form, as by inference^ or 
impliGatioii^ we could overwhelm them with it. 
But no : they must have precept and example, 
or nothing. And why so shut up to this partic- 
ular form of evidence? 'Because,' they say, 
' in a positive institution^ such as baptism, every 
thing in relation to it must be expressly en- 
joined ; or a clear, unquestionable example 
must be given ; otherwise it can have no author- 
ity.' We will look at the matter of exam^ple b, 
little further along. At present I wish to ex- 
amine this rigid claim for express precept. 
' Show us the Scripture precept enjoining it,* 
say our brethren of the other side, ' and then we 



90 iNFA^'T bapiism; 

will admit tlie validity of iiifanr baptism ; but 
not till then.' Well, if this is good reasoning 
on the subject of haptism^ it is equally so on the 
subject of the cw(?/i(^m^. The Lord's Supper is 
as truly a positive institution as baptism ; and 
if none may be admitted to baptism but such as 
are expressly declared to be entitled to it, then 
none may be admitted to the eucharistic sup- 
per but such as are expressly declared to be en- 
titled to it. And, arguing by this rule, we 
challenge the opposers of infant baptism to show 
their authority for admitting females to the 
Lord's table. On men it was enjoined, "Do 
this in remembrance of me ; " but nowhere in 
the Bible is this, or anything like it, enjoined 
expressly on women. I freely grant that the 
right of females to the Lord's Supper may be 
fairly inferixd from several things ; — such as 
their being admitted to baptism, and member- 
ship in the Church ; and from their equal abil- 
ity with men to discern the Lord's body, and to 
profit by the ordinance ; and also from its being 
said in Gal. 3 : 28, " There is neither male nor 
female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." 
From these, and some other considerations, it is 
inferred^ and I think justly, that pious females 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 97 

have an equal right with pious men to the table 
of the Lord. But let it be remembered, this is 
an inference^ and not a positive precept. And 
they who can accept inferential proof in favor 
of female communion are bound to accept the 
same kind of proof in favor of infant baptism. 
The argument against infant baptism which is 
drawn from the absence of positive precept, is 
abandoned the moment you admit the validity 
of female communion, which has no positive 
precept to sustain it. And if inferential proof 
is good in its support, then the same kind of 
proof is equally good in support of infant bap- 
tism. And if the propriety of female commun- 
ion is not to be held in doubt on account of there 
being no express precept or command in its 
favor, since it can be fairly proved by infer- 
ence and analogy, then neither is the propriety 
of infant baptism to be held in doubt on account 
of there being no express precept or command 
in its favor, provided it can be fairly proved by 
inference and analogy. And this kind of proof 
I shall, as I trust, in due time, show to be abun- 
dant in favor of infant baptism. Whatever obj ec- 
tions, therefore, may be urged against the bap- 
tism of infants, let no one object to it on the 
E Y 



98 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

ground that there is no express precept to sup- 
port it, or command enjoining it, until he is pre- . 
pared also, and for the same reason, to object to 
females coming to the sacramental Supper, 

(2.) To deny the propriety of infant baptism on 
the ground that there is no express precept en- 
joining or authorizing it, is a bad argument, be- 
cause it assumes, contrary to fact, that a privi- 
lege which God had once expressly conferred on 
the Church, and which had been enjoyed for 
many hundreds of years, and w^as never revoked, 
required to be expressly renewed, in order to 
retain its validity. It cannot be denied that the 
Church, under the patriarchal and Mosaic dis- 
pensations was expressly authorized to bring her 
infant ofi'spring into covenant with God, and to 
have the seal of the covenant affixed to them. 
That seal was circumcision. Under the Christian 
dispensation, although the covenant, as to its 
spiritual part, continues, (as I shall endeavor to 
show in the next chapter , ) yet the seal is 
changed from circumcision to baptism. But in 
this changing of the seal, there is nowhere any 
intimation that the j^ar^/^^ interested in the cov- 
enant are to be changed — a thing which would 
require to be expressly stated, if any such 



OBJECTIONS COXilDERED. 99" 

change in the parties were intended. Under the 
former dispensation, believers with their infant 
offspring were inchided in the covenant promise 
— "I will be a God to thee and to tliv seed after 
thee," and had the seal placed npon them. 
And unless the contrary is declared, believers 
with their infant offspring are still included in 
the covenant promise, and entitled to its seal. 
The privilege which had been granted to the 
infant seed of the Church must necessarily re- 
main until it is revoked. But nowhere in the 
Bible is there any intimation of this privilege 
being revoked; — nowhere is it intimated that, 
Tinder the gospel dispensation, the Church must 
leave her children out of covenant, and withhold 
from them the seal. And hence the quietude 
of the Jewish believers on this subject. They 
never uttered a word of complaint that, under 
the gospel, they were to be denied the privilege 
which, for so many ages they had enjoyed — • 
that of bringing their children with them into 
covenant relation to God ; as they certainly 
would have complained, if such had been the 
fact. Tliere never was a people more distin- 
guished by any one trait of character than were 
the Jews, by jealousy of their peculiar Church 



100 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

privileges. And it is utterly incredible that 
they should have remained silent, if so impor- 
tant an encroachment had been made on those 
privileges, as that of excluding their infant off- 
spring from the benefits of the covenant and its 
seal. But nowhere, either in the New Testa- 
ment or in any profane history, have we one 
word of complaint on this ground. And for the 
veiy good reason that no such ground of com- 
plaint existed. The Jewish converts were rec- 
ognized as members of the Christian Church, 
retaining their accustomed privilege in this re- 
spect, both for themselves and their children ; 
and there was no occasion for anytliing to be 
said on the subject. God had not revoked his 
covenant in relation to either adults or children ; 
and that covenant, it w^as understood, remained 
of course in full force. Only its outward seal 
was changed. But the new seal — baptism — 
would naturally be applied to adult believers 
and their infant seed, as circumcision had been. 
It needed no new announcement that the infants 
of believers should receive the seal of the cove- 
nant under the gospel. This followed as a mat- 
ter of course, unless it was forbidden. But it 
was never forbidden, and the Jewish convert 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 101 

miglit well be silent. On the supposition, there- 
fore, that baptism, under the gospel, is to be ad- 
ministered to the infant offspring of believers, 
n*^ ex[)ress }>recept or warrant is to be looked 
for, or expected, in the Xew Testament. It was 
not at all needed. The warrant had long before 
been given in the command to fix the seal of 
the covenant on the children of the Church. 
Inasmuch as that command has never been re- 
voked, there was no occasion to repeat it in the 
New Testament ; and it still remains in full 
force. The argument, therefore, against infant 
baptism, which is founded on the absence of any- 
express precept or command, is sheer sophism, 
entitled to no weight whatever in the decision 
of this question. 

3. It is said that there is no clear and indis- 
pitahle examjjle of infant haptism recorded in 
the Scriptures I and that, consequently, we are 
not to believe it was practiced in the apostolic 
churches, especially since it is not expressly 
commanded. This argument is as lame as the 
one last considered, and much in the same way. 
What if there are no clear and indisputable ex- 
amples of infjint baptism recorded in the Scrip- 
tures? Does it thence follow that no such ex- 



302 INFANT BAJ'TISM ; 

amples occurred ? Apply this rule to the subject 
of female communion. There are no clear and 
indisputable examples of women coming to the 
Lord's table recorded in the New Testament. 
Will our brethren thence infer that no such ex- 
amples occurred? Certainly not. And why 
not ? Because they can prove, by inference, by 
analogy, and by implication, that pious females 
have a right to the Communion Supper, and 
therefore doubtless enjoyed that right. But in 
the same way, by inference, by analogy, and 
by implication, we can prove, as I intend to do, 
that the infants of believers have a right to bap- 
tism, and therefore doubtless enjoyed that right. 
And if the want of a clear and explicit example 
of women's coming to the Lord's table consti- 
tutes no argument against the propriety of fe- 
male communion, then neither does the want 
of a clear and explicit example of infant bap- 
tism constitute any argument against the pro- 
priety of that practice. Female communion is 
not forMdden^ and neither is infant baptism ; 
and the evidence which supports the one is of 
precisely the same nature as that which supports 
the other ; viz, inferential, analogical, and ini- 
' plied. But evidence afforded in this way, if it 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 103 

be fairly inferred, fairly analogous, or fairly im- 
plied, is just as good as evidence aiforded by 
direct precept, or explicit example. It is deemed 
sufficient to establish the authority of female 
communion ; and with the same propriety it 
should be deemed sufficient to establish the au- 
thority of infant baptism. 

But it should be remembered that it is not, 
and cannot be, proved that there are no exam- 
ples of infant baptism recorded in the New Tes- 
tament. There are several examples of house- 
hold haptism recorded ; and it can never be 
proved that infants were not included in more 
or less of those households. We admit, it is not 
certain that they were included ; but neither is 
it certain that they were not. The cases are 
recorded precisely as we might have expected 
them to be, on the supposition that infants loere 
among them, and received the seal of the cove- 
nant along with other members of the house- 
hold ; just as was the case when a family of 
heathen, including infants and adults, became 
converted and joined the Church under the for- 
mer dispensation. 

There is another important fact to be consid- 
ered in regard to this matter of IS'ew Testament 



104 INFANT baptism; 

example. The ministers of Christ, whose labors 
are recorded in the New Testament, were called 
to preach mostly among those who had not be- 
fore received the gospel, or Christian baptism ; 
and their first and main business was, of course, 
to preach to adults ; and when thej believed, to 
baptize them, and organize them into churches. 
Thejwerenecessarili/'baY>tized on the prof esm,07i 
of their faith., rather than in infancy ; because 
they had not had Christian parents to offer them in 
baptism while in infancy. It was with the apos- 
tles just as it is with our foreign missionaries on 
this subject. The first converts under their 
labors have been born, not of Christian, but of 
heathen parents, and of course were not bap- 
tized in infancy, but require the ordinance on 
the profession of their faith. So with the apos- 
tles. Their first converts were not born of 
Christian parents, but of heathen, or of Jews 
under the law ; and* of course could not have 
been baptized in infancy. Hence it became 
necessary to baptize theni on the profession of 
their faith; just as would have been done, if 
tliey had believed under the preaching of a mod- 
ern Presbyterian. And the fact of their baptism 
being thus recorded in connection with their 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 105 

profession of faith does not in any way militate 
against the propriety of baptizing the chikh-en 
of believing parents. It does not tonch the sub- 
ject, ^or is it at all strange that no more 
shonld have been said, in such. circumstances, 
on the subject of infant baptism ; or that, in 
their addresses to peo23le so situated, they should 
have said, " llepent and be baptized ;" or " Be- 
lieve and be baptized." In preaching to unbap- 
tized adults, they could hardly have spoken in 
any other way. And the examples of baptism 
to be recorded in such circumstances woukl most 
naturally be those of adults rather than of infants, 
except as they baptized households ; since the 
nations were then for the first time receiving the 
gospeL 

But there is another phase to this argument 
respecting Scripture example which we have not 
yet considered. The labors of the aj^jostles ex- 
tended through a period of hetioeen thirty and 
forty years^ during which time many thousands 
believed, and were gathered into the Church. 
IN^ow, it cannot be doubted that, during this peri- 
od, especially the latter part of it, many were con- 
verted and received into the Church who were 
born of Christian parents — parents wdio had 



106 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

been among the earlier fruits of the apostles' 
ministry. But among all the examples of adult 
baptism mentioned in the Kew Testament, there 
is not one of a person who was born of Cli*is-tian 
parents, ^ow, observe in wliat direction this 
fact testifies. Of all the descendant^ of Chris- 
tian parents, who were converted and receivc^d 
into communion during that period of thirty odd 
years in which the apostles labored, not one case 
is mentioned where the subject was baptized on 
profession of his faith. Yet we dare not pre- 
sume that no such persons were converted in 
all that time. AVe know there were some ; and, 
considering the remarkable success which at- 
tended the ministry of the apostles, we must be- 
lieve that many were converted who were the 
children of believing parents. And why have 
we not an account of the baptism of some one 
or more of them ? If tlie ap(^stles had been from 
the first in the habit of baptizing believers' 
households^ including the infant children, this 
will explain it. Those persons, having been 
baptized in infancy with the households to which 
they belonged, tliere was no occasion for fur- 
ther notice of their baptism. 

And certainly the fact that there is no specific 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED, 107 

record of the baptism of such a person does not 
argue that these persons were not baptized at 
all. Neither does the fact that there is no spe- 
cific record of infant baptism argue that infants 
were not baptized at all. And from all that has 
been said on this point, I think the reader can- 
not fail to see that, before we can be justified 
in rejecting the baptism of infants on the ground 
of there being no record of such a case in the Bi- 
ble, we must be prepared, on the same ground, 
to reject female communion, and believe that 
all the children of Christian parents who grew 
up and were converted during the ministry of 
the apostles, were received into the Church with- 
out ever being baptized at all. 

I have now done with the main arguments 
which are urged against infant baptism. So far 
as I know, thej are all comprised in the three 
which have been considered, viz . 

1. The Scriptures require faith and repent- 
ance in order to baptism ; but infants cannot re- 
pent and believe, and therefore ought not to be 
baptized. 

2. There is no direct precept or command au- 
thorizing infant baptism. 

3. There is no clear and explicit example 



108 

of infant baptism recorded in the !N"ew Testa- 
ment. 

Here, I believe, is tlie whole strength of the 
opposition, except what consists in objecting to 
our direct evidence in fctvar of the practice. In 
respect to the first of these arguments, I have 
shown that it rests on a misapprehension of 
Scripture, in applying to all classes what is in- 
tended only for adults \ and that, on the suppo- 
sition that infants are included, it will prove that 
they must all be damned ; since, if only they 
who believe are to be baptized, then only they 
who believe and are baptized are to be saved, 
and they who do not believe shall be damned. 

In respect to the second of these arguments, 
that which is drawn from the absence of any 
express command or precept in favor of infant 
baptism, I have shown that there was no occa- 
sion for such a precept in the New Testament 
to autliorize the practice, since it is only using 
a privilege wliich God had long before granted 
to the Church, and had never recalled, viz. the 
privilege of bringing lier infant offspring into 
covenant with God by fixing the seal of the cov- 
enant upon them. I have also shown that, if 
infants are to be refused baptism for want of an 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDEKED. 109 

express Bible precept, then females are to be 
refused the sacramental supper for the same 
reason ; and I might have added that, for the 
same reason, we should refuse to observe the 
first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath, 
since there is no direct precept to justify it ; and 
we defend the practice only by inferential rea- 
soning, such as is employed to defend infant 
baptism and female connn union. 

"With respect to the third and last of these ar- 
guments, — that which is drawn from the want 
of any explicit scriptural example of infant bap- 
tism, I have shown that, in the circumstances 
of the apostles, laboring, as they did, chiefly 
among people Avho had not before received the 
gospel, such examples are scarcely to be ex- 
pected, except as they baptized households. 
Further, I have shown that if infant baptism is 
to be rejected for want of explicit examples in 
the Kew Testament, then for the same reason 
we must reject female communion, and believe 
that all the children of the Church, who grew up 
and were converted under the ministry of the 
apostles during a period of thirty odd years, 
were received into the Church without any bap- 
tism at all. 



110 LS^FANT BAPTISM. 

!N'oWjI clo not think my readers are quite pre- 
pared to believe that all who die in infancy are 
damned ; or that a privilege which God had 
once granted to the Church, and never recalled, 
became null on the introduction of the gospel, 
merely because it was not exj^licitly renewed ; 
or that pious females should be refused admis- 
sion to the sacramental suj)per ; or that the first 
day of the week should not be observed as the 
Christian Sabbath ; or that the converted chil- 
dren of Christian parents were received into the 
Church under the apostles unbaptized. But if 
we are not prepared to believe all this, then we 
must believe these arguments against infant bap- 
tism are good for nothing — mere sophisms, en- 
titled to no weight or confidence whatever ; and 
that consequently the Scriptures contain nothing 
adverse to this practice. 

In the next chapter I will call attention to 
some of the direct arguments in defence of in- 
fant baptism, — especially such as are drawn 
from the Abraham ic covenant. 



CHAPTER V. 

INFANT BAI'TISM ABEAHAMIC COVENANT. 

In opening the discussion of infant ljaj)tism 
in the last chapter, I called attention to the ques- 
tion, whether the Scriptures contain or teach any 
thing adverse to the practice of baptizing the in- 
fants of believers. The evidence and arguments 
urged against this practice by its opponents were 
shown to be inappropriate and unsound ; and 
the conclusion was reached, (how satisfacto- 
rily, I leave the reader to judge,) that the Scrip- 
tures do not teach any thing adverse to this 
practice. 

I come now to the next thing contemplated, 
viz . to ascertain and exhibit what the Scriptures 
teach IN FAVOR of infant hajdism^ especially in 
connection with the Abraiiamic Covenant. And, 
as the basis of the discussion, I offer the follow- 
ing propositions. 

I. The Church of God was originally organ- 
ized under the Qovenant made with Abraham, 



112 I^'FA^•T BAPTISM ; 

II. In that covenant^ children tcere included 
with their ^arents^ and lieliyed to compose the 
Church. 

III. The Christian Church is that same Church 
continued^ ordy tinder another form of adrainis- 
tration. 

lY. Believers in the Christian Church have 
the same interest in the main provision of the 
Abrahamic covenant as helievers in the Jewish 
Church had. That covenant is still in force. 

Y. The Christian Chjiirch has the same privi- 
lege of including her infant offspring in the cov- 
enant as the Jeioish Church had', unless^hy sqme 
neio arrangement, God has forhidden it. 

YI. The privilege of helieving parents bring- 
ing their children with them into covenant with 
God, and thus into the visible Church — and 
that, too, by the same ordinance lohich is ap- 
pointed for themselves, has never been with- 
drawn / and therefore still remains. 

YII. The Jewish converts to Christianity never 
understood the Christian Church to exclude the 
children of believers. 

YIII. The unbelieving Jews never raised the 
objection against the Christian Church that they 
excluded their iifant offspring. 



ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 113 

IX. Baptisin is the only ordinance of initia' 
tioii into the Church under the gospel, and the 
only seal or tohen of the covenant ^ and hence hc- 
longs to all who are the ijroper snhjects of church- 
membershij). It belongs, therefore, to helieving 
parents and their infant seed. 

To the establisliment of these propositions 1 
will now direct my endeavors. 

I. The Church of God ivas originally organ- 
icied under the covenant which the Lord made 
with Ahraham. That covenant I will here tran- 
scribe. Gen. 17 : 1-14. " And when Abram was 
ninety 3^ears old and nine, the Lord appeared to 
Abram, and said nnto him, 1 am the Almighty 
God ; walk before me and be thou perfect. And 
1 will make my covenant between me and thee, 
and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abrara 
fell on his face : and God talked with him, say- 
ing. As for me, behold, my covenant is with 
tlice, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 
Xeither shall thy name any more be called 
Abram ; 1)nt thy name shall be Abraham ; for a 
father of many nations have I made thee. And 
I will make thee exceeding frnitful, and I will 
make nations of thee ; and kings shall come out 
of thee. And I will establish my covenant be- 

8 



114- INFANT baptism; 

tween me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in 
their generations, for an everlasting covenant; 
to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 
And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after 
thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, — all 
the land of Canaan, for an everlasting posses- 
sion ; and I w^ill be their God. And God said 
unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant 
therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee, in their 
generations. This is my covenant, which ye 
shall keep, between me and you, and thy seed 
after thee ; Every man-child among you shall be 
circumcised. "^ And*ye shall circumcise the flesh 
of your foreskin ; and it shall be a token of the 
covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is 
eight days old shall be circumcised among you, 
every man-child in your generations, he that is 
born in the house, or bought with money of any 
stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is 
born in thy house, and he that is bought with 
thy money, must needs be circumcised : and my 
covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlast- 
inor covenant. And the uncircumcised man- 
child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circum- 

* In this arrangement, females were reckoned in the males, 
and therefore needed no personal seal. 



ABKAHAMIC COVENANT. 115 

cised, that soul shall be cut off from his people ; 
he hath broken my covenant." 

Previously to the date of this covenant, as ev- 
ery attentive reader of the Bible knows, the 
worship of God was maintained only by isolated 
persons, here and there, scattered amid the pre- 
vailing irreligion or idolatry ; and having no 
organization or concert, and no systematic means 
of perpetuating a pure faith. The consequence 
was, that, for the second time, true religion had 
become well-nigh obliterated from the earth. 
But God had determined now to establish a sys- 
tematic plan for maintaining religion among 
men; — a plan by which his own worshipers 
should combine their influence, and secure to 
successive generations a pious training from in- 
fancy. He therefore proceeded to organize in 
the family of Abraham a regular Church, with 
covenant and ordinance. The Scripture account 
of this transaction, the reader has just seen. It 
may be paraphased and amplified as follows : — 

' Behold, Abram, I liave called tliee out from 
tliy native Ur of the Chaldees, and separated 
thee from thy father's house, and promised to 
make thee the father of a very numerous pos- 
terity ; and I have appropriated to thy posterity 



116 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

this land of Canaan wherein thou now dwellest ; 
and I have also promised that in thy seed all the 
families of the earth shall be blessed. I will 
now reveal to thee more fully what is my pur- 
pose in all this. And first, I v/ill repeat what I 
have heretofore promised, that thou shalt be the 
father of many nations, and of kings ; on which 
account thy name shall now be changed from 
Abram to Abraham, which signifies, father of 
a great multitude. This multiplication of thy 
seed shall be true literally ', and it shall also be 
true in a more important and sjnritual sense, 
which will be better understood hereafter. 

'But my object in these arrangements is to 
provide for the maintenance of true religion 
among men. I will theref(3re organize a Church 
in thy family, to be perpetuated in thy seed — • 
literal and spiritual; — a Church which shall 
worship me, the only true God. Am\ I will now 
establish my covenant with thee, and with thy 
seed after thee, for an everlasting covenant. 
And these shall be the terms of this covenant. 
On your part, it shall be required that ye wor- 
ship me alone as God, and maintain a holy life. 
Go not after other gods, and beware of every 
wickedness. Walk before me, and be thou per- 



ABKAHAMIC COVENANT. 117 

feet. And, on my part J promise that I will be 
a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee. The 
nations around thee are vainly trusting to idol 
gods, which cannot profit them ; but I will be 
tity God, and the God of tlmj seed. Thus, there- 
fore, do I now establish my covenant between 
me and thee, and thy seed after thee, to be a God 
to thee, and to thy seed after thee. And this is 
the token and seal of the covenant between me 
and you, which ye shall keep and use, viz . Thou 
shalt be circumcised; and every man-child 
among you shall be circumcised. And the un- 
circumcised man-child shall be cut off from his 
people. He shall be rejected from the privi- 
leges of the Church, and have no interest in the 
covenant j^romise.' 

After the estabiishment of this covenant, 
Abraham was forthwith circumcised, and every 
male person in his household. Thus w^as the 
Church organized, having the covenant of God 
for its constitution, and the ordinance of circum- 
cision for its seal. 

^Nothing, I think, can be more manifest, than 
that the grand design in all this was to provide 
an agency for resisting the tide of wickedness, 
and establishing righteousness on the earth, by 



lis INFANT baptism; 

raising np a multitude of pious worshipers of 
the true God. For tiiis purpose tlie land of 
Canaan was given them, that they might be 
kept separate from the idolatrous nations about 
them, and not be contaminated by their per- 
nicious example or influence. And in accord- 
ance with this grand design, it was promised to 
Abraham that his seed should be amazingly nu- 
merous. But the gist of the whole, and that for 
which all the rest was given, consisted in the 
promise, " I will be a God to thee, and to thy 
SEED AFTER THEE." It was tliis whicli sccurcd 
true religion among them, and distinguished 
them from the idolatrous world. This promise 
conveyed to Abraham and his seed all the spirit- 
ual blessings of the Church. It is this promise 
which God calls, by way of eminence, his " cove- 
nants^'' and which he establishes in the line of 
Isaac, in distinction from tlie other children of 
Abraham, as mentioned a little further on, in 
the 21st verse. He engages tliat Ishmael shall 
be made a great nation ; " but," says he, " my 
covenant will I establish with Isaac." It is this 
which the apostle Paul refers to as *' the vrom- 
ise,''^ when he says that believers in the Gentile 
Church, being Christ's, are " Abraham's seed, 



ABRAHAMIC COVEN AJTT. 119 

and heirs according to the jyromisey Gal. 3 : 
29. This spiritual promise — "I will be a God 
to thee, and to thy seed after thee," is, tlierefore, 
the constitution of the Church — the covenant 
of God under which she is organized. From 
the date of this covenant, the people of God 
have had a visible distinction from the men of 
the world, being an organized community by 
themselves. To this community, as it existed 
in the time of Moses, the martyr Stephen refers, 
and calls it '^ the Church in the wilderness." 
Acts 7 : 38. This was the Church of God — the 
community of true worshipers, which has been 
perpetuated to the present day, and will exist 
to the end of time. From these considerations, 
I think it must be sufficiently plain that the 
Church of God was originally organized imder 
the covenant made with Abraham. 

II. In that covenant^ children were included 
with their parents, and helped to compose the 
Church. Circumcision being appointed as the 
token or seal of the covenant, all were necessa- 
rily included in the covenant to whom the seal 
was orderly applied. Not only did A-braham 
receive the seal, but also the cliiklren of his 
household. And ever afterwards, when one 



120 INFANT baptism; 

from among the other nations became a prose- 
lyte to the Jewish faith,^' he received circum- 
cision himself, and also the male children of 
his family. In tliis way, he and his house- 
hold became members of the visible Church. 
They thereby came under covenant obligation, 
along with the natural seed of Abraham, to 
* walk before God and be perfect ; ' and were 
entitled to the benefits of the promise, " I 
w^ill be a God to thee, and to thy seed after 
thee." The introduction of the children of be- 
lievers into the covenant by the application of 
the seal to them was by special divine injunc- 
tion ; and the man-child who was not circum- 
cised was treated as an offender, and rejected 
from the Church and all the spiritual privileges 
of the covenant promise. " He shall be cut off 
from his people," says God ; " he hath broken 
my covenant." It cannot, therefore, be denied, 
and it is not disputed, that the children of be- 
lievers were originally embraced in the covenant 
of* God, as being included in the Church, and 
having the initiatory seal or token placed upon 
them. 

*That is, a "proselyte of righteousness;'* and not merely 
a " proselyte of the gate." 



ABRAIIAMIC COVENANT. 121 

III. My next position is that, the Christian 
Church is this same Church continued^ only un- 
der another form of administration. Tliis is 
demonstrated by tlie apostle Paul, in tlie elev- 
enth chapter of Romans ; where, in allusion to 
what is said in Jer. 11 : 16, he represents the 
Jewish nation, which was constituted the visi- 
ble Church of God by virtue of the covenant 
made with Abraham, under the figure of an 
olive tree, of which Abraham was the root, and 
his descendants by Isaac the branches. The 
passage in Jeremiah is prophetic, and is as fol- 
lows : — "The Lord called thy name, A green 
OLIVE TREE, fair and of goodly fruit. With the 
noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon 
it, and the branches of it are broken. For the 
Lord of hosts that planted thee hath pronounced 
evil against thee, for the evil of the house of 
Israel, and of the house of Judah, which they 
have done against themselves, to provoke me 
to anger." Kow, in direct allusion to this 
prophecy of Jeremiah, and as if to show its ful- 
filment, the apostle, wlien speaking of the unbe- 
lieving Jews being thrust out of the visible 
Church, represents them as the natural branches 
of the olive tree broken off for their unbelief ; 
F 



/122 INFANT UAl'TIteM ; 

while the believing Gentiles, taken from a v.'ild 
stock, are grafted into the good olive tree ; 
that is to say, are incorporated into the visible 
Chnrch, and permitted to partake of the bles- 
sings of the Abrahamic covenant. " And if," 
says he, addressing the Gentile believers in a 
strain of admonition and warning, — '' And if 
some of the. branches be broken off, and thou, 
being a wikl olive tree, wert grafted in among 
them, and with them partakest of the root and 
fatness of the olive tree," [partakest, with tlie 
believing Jews, of all the privileges of God's 
covenant and Cliurch,] " boast not against the 
branches ;" — meaning the hrohen—off hninches. 
*' But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, 
but the root thee." [If you do boast, remember 
that you have not conveyed Church privileges 
to Abraham and his posterity ; but the covenant 
was made with Abraham and his seed ; and 
they have been the means of opening the priv- 
ileges of the Church to you.] " Thou wilt say, 
then. The branches were broken off that I might 
be grafted in." ['The natural branches, the 
Jews, were broken off — cast out of the Cliurch 
— that we Christian Gentiles might be admit- 
ted in.'] " Well," says Paul, " because of un- 



ABRAIIAMIC COVENANT. 123 

belief tliej were broken off; and tlion standest 
by faitli. Be not high-minded, but fear. For 
if God spared not tlie natural branches, take 
heed lest he also spare not thee. Behokl, there- 
fore, the goodness and severity of God; — on 
them which fell, severity ; but towards tliee 
goodness, if thou continue in his goodness ; oth- 
erwise thou- also shalt be cut off" — [cut off 
from this same good olive tree, the Church of 
God, from which the Jews for unbelief were 
broken off; and into which you Gentiles have 
been grafted.] '^And they also, [the Jews,] if 
they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted 
in : for God is able to graft them in again : " — • 
[into the same olive tree, or Church from which 
they were broken olf.] " For if thou wert cut 
out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, [they 
had been brought out of heathenism,] and wert 
grafted contrary to nature into a good olive 
ti-ee, — [the Church of God,] — how much more 
shall these [Jews] whichbe the natural branches, 
be grafted into their own olive tree : " — [their 
own Church.] 

]S'ow,what can be ])lainer than all this? Here 
the apostle, in imitation of Jeremiah, speaks of 
the Jewish Church under the figure of a good 



124: INFANT BAPTISM ; 

olive tree, of which Abraham is called "the 
root," because the Church, as an organized com- 
munity, began with him ; and the covenant, as tlie 
constitution of the Church, was made with him. 
Of this Church, founded by God in the family 
of Abraham, the Jews were the natural mem- 
bers. They were "the natural branches" of 
the " olive tree." But when they refused to re- 
ceive Christ as the promised Messiah and Head 
of the Church ; or to believe in him as the Son 
of God and Saviour of men ; they were, for their 
unbelief, rejected from the visible Church, and 
the blessings of God's covenant; — they were 
"broken off " from the olive tree. This was 
true of the mass of the nation. There were, 
however, many exceptions. Many of the Jews 
believed in Christ, and were permitted to retain 
their place in the true Church, and still enjoy 
the privilege of that sacred covenant, "I will be 
a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee." They 
remained in their own "good olive tree," as 
green and fruitful branches ; while the unbeliev- 
ms: Jews were broken off. Into this same olive 
tree the Gentile converts to Christianity were 
grafted. The old tree was not broken down and 
destroyed, and a new one planted in its stead. 



APAIXIIAVAC COVENANT. 125 

The old Church, witli herj^recious spiritual cov- 
enant, was not Ijruken down and abolished. She 
still remained, a good olive tree ; and the Gentile 
ct)!iverts to the Christian faith wer^grafted into 
her ; and, along with believing Jews, were per- 
mitted to "partake oMie root aiwlfatness of the 
''olive" — were allowea to share in the blessings 
of the covenant made with Abraham, and enjoy 
all the spiritual privileges of the Church. The 
idea, therefore, that the Jewish Church was 
abolished, and that the Christian Church is a 
new institution, is altogether a mistake. The 
Christian Church is but a continuation of the 
Jewish Church — the same good olive tree ; ex- 
cept that most of the original branches have 
been removed, and others have been grafted in. 
But still, some of the natural branches remain ; 
and as fast as the Jews are converted to Christ, 
they are grafted back " into their own olive tree." 
The Church is one / as Christ, speaking of the 
Church in the Song of Soloition, says, " My dove, 
my undefiled, is but one." The tree is the same ; 
its root and its trunk continue the same ; and it 
is nourished and supported by the same gracious 
covenant, " I will be a God to thee and to thy 
seed after thee." 



126 INFANT E-VrTISM; 

It is true, the Church is under a different forfn 
of administrrition from what she was before the 
deatli of Chri^it. Iler sacraments have, by ex- 
press divine authority, been changed, agreeably 
to her changed condition and circumstances. 
And many o^ her ceremonies have been abol-- 
islied by tiie same express authority; because 
the purposes for wdiich they were instituted luive 
been accomplished, and the occasion for them 
does not now exist. But this change in the ex- 
ternal polity of the Church is a very different 
thing from the annihilation of one Church, and 
the institution of another. Nor does a change 
in the outward ce^monies of the Church involve 
any change in the rights and privileges of mem- 
bership. The same persons who were entitled to 
membership, and the benefits of the covenant, 
before the ceremonial law was abrogated, are 
entitled to these privileges now, unless excluded 
by express divine authority. 
' If any thiu2^ more were wantinor to sliow the 
identity of th.e Jewish Church, organized under 
the Abrahamic covenant, and the Christian 
Church that now is, it might be found in tliat 
remark of Christ to the Jews in Matt. 21 : 43. 
" Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God 



ABRAHAMIC COTEXA^-f. 127 

shall be taken from 3*011 , and given to a nation 
bringing foilh tlie fruits thereof." By '' tlie 
kingdom of God," here, is evidently intended, 
the visible Church, in which God reigns the ac- 
knowledged King. Agreeably to this declara- 
tion, the privileges of the Church were, in fact ^ 
taken from the Jews, and given to the believing 
Gentiles. The Jews, for many ages, had been in 
almost exclusive possession of the Church, with 
the ordinances of religion. But, as a nation, 
they did not yield to God the appropriate fruits 
of religion, and were rejected for their stubborn 
unbelief. The visible Church — God's kingdom 
on earth — with covenant and ordinance, which 
had so long been confined almost entirely to 
them, was taken from them, and is now in the 
possession of Gentiles, who bring forth more ap- 
propriate fruits. But the Christian Church 
among the Gentiles is the same Church — the 
same spiritual kingdom of God — whicli was ta- 
ken from the Jews, and which, in an organized 
form, began with Abraham, 

It would probaldy be supei'fluous to argue this 
point fiiriher. I am sure it must be evident to 
every attentive and unprejudiced reader, that 
the Jewish Church was not abolished on the in- 



128 ' INFANT baptism; 

troduction of the gospel ; nor was tbe Christian 
Church then founded as a new and separate in- 
stitution ; but that the Christian Church of the 
present day is, in tlie mind of God, a continua- 
tion, under a changed exterior, of that same 
Church which had its commencement in the 
household of Abraham. 

lY. I propose next, to show that helievers m 
the Christian Church have the same interest in 
the 7nain j)^ovision of tJie Ahrahainic covenant 
m believers in the Jewish Church had. By the 
main .provision I mean the spiritual promise, "I 
will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after 
thee ; " with the obligation on their part to main- 
tain holiness of life, as expressed by the com- 
mand, " Walk before me, and be thou perfect." 
The promise of Canaan was merely an appendage 
to the covenant, — an incidental thing, to provide 
a resting place for the Church, and save her from 
contamination, by keeping her separate from the 
idolatrous world around. As the main object of 
God in organizing the Church appears to have 
been, to raise uj) a people for his own ^vorship 
and service, in whom the purity and power of 
true religion might be exemplilied ; so the main 
thino^ in the covenant was that spiritual prom- 



ABRAIIAillC COYEXANT. 129 

ise, "I will be a God to tliee, and to thy seed 
after thee." And in this covenant promise, I 
say, believers in the Christian Church have the 
same interest as believers under the former dis- 
pensation had. The covenant is still in full 
force; — as much so as at anytime after the 
days of Abraham. This indeed follows necessa- 
rily, if the Church is the same. But we are not 
.^eft to gather it by such an inference. We have 
apostolic testimony to the fact. In the third 
chapter of Galatians, the apostle Paul has the 
following reasoning on the subject. '' Christ 
hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, be- 
ing made a curse for us ; . . . that the bles- 
sing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles 
through fJesus Christ." If w^e had not been re- 
deemed from the curse of the law, we must all 
have perished in our sins. But Christ hath re- 
deemed us, in order that " the blessing of Abra- 
ham" — that is to say, the blessing promised in 
the covenant w^itli Abraham — might come on 
the Gentiles as well as the Jews, by virtue of 
our union to Christ through faith. For the 
promises were made, not so much to the natural 
descendants of Abraham, as to Christ in behalf 
of believers wdio exercise the faith of Abraham. 

F* 9 



130 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

'' IS'ow," says Paul, in the cliapter above referred 
to, — "Now, to Abi'aliam and liis seed were the 
23romises made. lie saith not, And to seeds, as 
of MANY," viz. Abraliani's natural descendants ; 
" biiir as of ONE, And to tliy seed, whicli is 
Christ." To Christ, as the representative of his 
people, wlio possess the faith of Abraham, were 
the promises made. " And tliis I say, that the 
COVENANT, whicdi was confirmed before of God 
in Christ, [confirmed to believers, in the person 
of Christ,] the lavv' wliich was four hundred and 
thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should 
make the promise of none effect." The ceremo- 
nial law, which was abrogated at the death of 
Christ, was not given until centuries alter this 
covenant was made with Abraham. How 
then, the apostle's reasoning asks, could the ab- 
rogation of the law disannul tlie covenant, or 
impair the efficacy of tlie promise, since the 
covenant was in no way dependent on tlie cere- 
monial law, but existed hundreds of years be- 
fore the law was given ? Here is an arguuient 
constructed by the apostle on purpose to prove 
that the Abrahamic covenant is not done away, 
but is yet in full force in the Christian Church. 
And he concludes the argument by saying, 



ABP.AnAillC COVENANT. 131 

" And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's 
seed, and lieirs, according to the promise." As 
if he had said, If you are Christians, then you 
are the spiritual seed of Abraham, and heirs of 
the blessing prondsed in the covenant, '* I will 
be a God to thee, and to tliy seed after thee." 
You are members of the same Churcl), and en- 
titled to the same covenant privileges, as were 
the direct descendants of Abraham, who be- 
lieved. This argument of tlie apostle, I think, 
ought to be sr.tricient to satisfy us, not only that 
the visible Church now is the same as that which 
was organized in the family of Abraham, but 
that the covenant made with Abraham is still in 
full force, as the basis or constitution of the 
Church. And hence, of course, the Christian 
Church has now the same kind of interest in the 
spiritual promise of the Abrahamic covenant as 
the Jewish Church had. 

There is a passage in the eighth chapter of 
Hebrews which, at first sight, may seem to con- 
flict with this view ; but, when more particularly 
examined, is found to confirm it. The passage 
is as follows : " But now^ hath he [Christ] ob- 
tained a more excellent ministry [tlian the 
Aaronic priesthood,] by how much also he is the 



132 INFANT BAPl'ISM ; 

mediator of a better covenant, which was estab- 
lished upon better promises. For if that first 
covenant had been faidtless, then should noplace 
have been sought for the second. For, finding 
fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, 
saith the Lord, when I w^ill make a new cov- 
enant with the house of Israel and with the 
house of Judah : not according to the covenant 
that I made with their fathers in the day when 
I took them bj the hand to lead them out of the 
land of Egypt ; because they continued not in 
my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the 
Lord. For tliis is tlie covenant that I will make 
with the house of Israel after those days, saith 
the Lord ; I will put my laws into their mind, 
and write them in their hearts : and I will be to 
them a God, and tliej^ shall be to me a people ; 
and they shall not teach every man his neigh- 
bor, and every man his brotlier, saying. Know 
the Lord ; for all shall know me, from the least 
to the grea es'. For I will be merciful to their 
unrighteousness, and their sins, and their iniqui- 
ties will I remember no more. In that he saith, 
A new covenant, he hath made the first old. 
Isow that which decayeth and waxeth old is 
readv to vanish away." 



ABIiAHAMIC COVKNxVXT. 133 

A hasty reading of this passage may lead 
some to suppose that the Abrahamic covenant 
cannot now be in force ; because that wliich is 
here called " the iirst covenant " is represented 
as '' old," and " vanishing away ; " and ex- 
changed for '' a new and better covenant, estab 
lislied on better promises," and having Christ 
for its minister. Bat a little attention will clear 
up this matter, and show with which of these 
two covenants, if either, the Abrahamic cove- 
nant is identified. It is certain that by " the 
first covenant," here called " old," is not meant 
the Abrahamic covenant, bnt that of the Mosaic 
ritual, or covenant given on Mount Sinai. God 
calls it, "The covenant wliich I made with their 
fathers in the day wlicn I took them by the hand 
to lead them out of the land of Egypt." And in 
the next chapter, tliis same "Iirst " or " old " 
covenant is described with the tabernacle, the 
' candlestick, the shew-hread, the holy of holies, 
the golden censer, the arh of the covenant, the pot 
of manna, Aaroris rod, tlie tables of the law, the 
cherubim of glory, and the mercy-seat; all of 
which identity it as the Mosaic covenant, and 
not the Abrahamic. But that which is here in- 
lew covenant" is plainly a neio 



134 INFANT I5APTISM ; 

edition of tlie Abrahamic covenant. It is called 
" new," because it was such to tlie minds of the 
Hebrews at tiiat time. Eor ages, tliey liad been 
accustomed to regard cliici'v tlie Mosaic cove- 
nant — the law of ceremonial observances. This 
was to their minds " the old covenant." And 
when tlie spiritual and gospel-like provisions of 
the Abraliamic covenant were renewedly pre- 
sented before them as objects of promise, the 
covenant containing them, though actually da- 
ting back some hundreds of years earlier than 
the other, was to them appropriately styled " a 
new covenant." That the new covenant here 
spoken of is really intended as a renewed ex- 
pression of the covenant with Abraham, espe- 
cially the spiritual part of it, is evident from tlie 
fact that their provisions are the same, and their 
language is the same, except that the former is 
more amplified. Look at it again. " For this 
is the covenant that I wdll make with the house 
of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord ; I will 
put my laws into their mind, and write them in 
their hearts ; and I will be to them a God, and 

TIIEY SHALL BE TO ME A PEOPLE. And thc)^ shall 

not teach every man his jieighbor, and every 
man Ids brother, saying, Know ye tlie Lord ; 



AJ3EAHAMIC COYEXAXT. 135 

for all shall know me, from the least to the great- 
est. For I will be merciful to their iniright- 
eonsness, and their sins and their iniquities will 
I remember no moi'e." In tliis covenant, God, 
by the propliet Jeremiali, (ol : 31-o-l,) plainly 
l>romises to renew, ])ardon, and sanctify his cho- 
sen people ; all of which is virtually included 
in the one grand idea of his being to them a 
God, and their being to him a people. And 
this was exactly the spiritual blessing promised 
in the covenant with Abraham. The fulfilment 
of this prouiise to the Cliurch nnder the gospel 
is the fair and legitimate carrying out of the 
covenant made with Abraham, and confirms the 
doctrine that that covenant is still the blessed 
inheritance of the Christian Church. 

Y. The next point to be established is this : — 
Members in the Cliristian Church have now the 
same jyrivilege ofincludhifj tJicir infant off spri7\g 
in the covenant as memhers in the Jeioish Chicrch 
hacl^ unless^ hy some new arrangement^ God has 
forhidden it. ludeed, this f )llows as a neces- 
sary consecpience of their having the same inter- 
est in the covenant. In the Jewish economy, 
parents \\\\o were themselves interested in the 
eovenaut of God were, by divine authority, per- 



136 INFANT baptism; 

mitted, and even reqidred^ to extend its benefits 
to their infant offspring, by having the covenant 
seal placed npon them. This seal was the visi- 
ble badge or token of their relation to the 
Church ; and its administration was the initia- 
ting ordinance. That the provisions of the cov- 
enant embraced the infant seed of believers in 
the Jewisli Church, I believe has never been 
dispnted b}^ Jew or Gentile. And accordingly, 
it was the nniform custom, in that Church, for 
parents to bring the children of their households 
into covenant with God, by sealing them with 
the same visible ordinance which themselves 
had received. And if members in the Christian 
Church have now the same interest in the spir- 
itual provisions of that covenant which members 
in the Jewish Church had, then it follows irre- 
sisitibly,that they also liave the privilege, and 
it is their duty, to include their infant children 
in the covenant, by j^lacing on them the same 
visible token or seal which they themselves have 
received ; unless^ by a special revelation from 
God, they have Ijeen forbidden. This privilege, 
be it remembered, was always conceded to pros- 
elytes from other nations who embraced the 
Jewish religion. Although they nen^er shared 



ABKAFIAMIC COVENANT. 137 

any inheritance in the land of Canaan^ yet they 
were allowed to be circumcised, as a public pro- 
fession of their faith, and as the means of be- 
coming interested in the covenant and Churcli 
of God. And wlien circumcised, and thus re- 
ceived into the Church, they had the same hi- 
terest in the sjnritual j^^'oniise of the covenant 
as the Jeios had ; and consequently, the same 
privilege of including their cliildren with them- 
selves ; — a privilege "vvliicli they improved by 
applying to such children the ordinance and 
seal of circumcision. And in the same manner, 
since the spiritual provisions of that covenant 
are perpetuated in tlie Christian Church, and 
believers enjoy the same intei'est in those pro- 
visions as did the believing Jews, while they 
themselves receive the visible token or seal of 
the covenant which is appointed to be used un- 
der the Christian dispensation, it becomes both 
their privileire and duty to ai ply this same seal 
to tlieir Ciiildren, and thus initiate them into the 
visible Church, on the same principle as did the 
believing Jews. I say, this is the privilege and 
duty of believing parents in tlie Christian Church 
as truly as it was in the Jewish Q\\\\v{-\\^vnless^ 
by some special prohibition, God has forbidden 



138 

it. If, on the introduction of the Christian dis- 
pensation, ijofthing was said on tliis subject, or 
not Iiing adverse to the then existing practice, it 
wouhi foUow, of course, that the Cimrch was still 
authorized to inchide her infant children as she 
had always done. In such a case, emphatically, 
" silence gives consent." 

VI. I pass now to the next position, which 
is tliat, tlic j^r^V^'Z^^^ of helleving parents hring- 
ing tJieir children loith them into covenant rela- 
tion to God^ and hy the same ordinance which is 
appointed for themselves^ has never heen icith- 
drawn. I scarcely need to argue this point. 
It plainly belongs to those who, while they ad- 
mit that believing parents might formerly bring 
their children into this relation, deny it to be 
their privilege now, to show the abrogation of 
this privilege by divine authority. But this 
they have not done, and cannot do ; and for the 
best of all reasons, viz. it is not a. f.act. God 
has never abrogated it. The Bible contains not 
the remotest intimation of such a thing. 

But; is it said that, in abolishing the rite of 
circumcision, that privilege was withdrawn ? 
How was it thus withdrawn ? The covenant 
was not withdrawn. I have proved that this 



AUIiAlIAMIC OOVENAXT. loO 

continues in full force in tlie Christian Clinrcli 
— tliat the promise is as ijcood to tlie believer 
now as it was to Abraham, "I will be a God to 
thee, and to thj seed after thee." This cove- 
nant promise, Abraham and all the Jewish 
Chnrch,by God's special instruction, understood 
as appl3'iiig to believers and their infant off- 
spring ; and accordingly, circumcision, as the 
initiating rite into the Chnrch, and that which 
sealed to her mend^ers an interest in the prom- 
ise, was applied to the infants of church-mem- 
bers, as it was also to adult converts and their 
children from among the heathen. 

But under our dispensation, circumcision is 
abolished, and baptism is now the rite of initia- 
tion into the Chnrch, and seals to her members 
an interest in the covenant promise. Yet, since 
the Church is still the same, and the covenant 
the same, how can a mere change of the initia- 
tor}' rite and covenant seal from circumcision to 
baptism, affect the title of infants ? Is not the 
promise still, "I will be a God^to thee, and to 
t/ii/ seed after thee '' ? And if tlds jx-irticular 
form of the covenant made it the privilege and 
duty of believing parents to extend it to their 
children while circumcision was the seal and 



140 INFANT baptism; 

rite of initiation, does not the same form of the 
covenant equally make it the privilege and duty 
of believing parents now to extend it to their 
children, when the initiating Tite and seal is 
baptism? J^Iost certainly it, does. A mere 
change of the initiating ordinance of the Chnrcli 
and seal of the covenant, froi^^circumcision to 
baptism cannot vitiate the title of infants, while 
the Church remains the same, and the covenant 
the same. 

I leave it, therefore, as settled, — and I think 
it \^ fairly, and I hope satisfactorily settl-ed, that 
the privilege, formerly granted to believing pa- 
rents, of ap])lying to their infant offspring the 
initiating ordinance of the Church, and of thus 
sealing to them an interest in God's covenant 
promise^ has never been withdrawn, and conse- 
quently still remains in full force. 

Yll. The Jewish converts^ in. the first age of 
Christianity , never understood the Christian 
ChurcJi to exclude the infant children of heliev- 
ers. And yetjthey were doubtless made to un- 
derstand the fact as it was. But, that they never 
.understood that their children were to be ex- 
cluded, is certain from the fact that they never 
raised the least remonstrance on the subject. 



ABKAIIAMIC COVKXAXT. 141 

The Jews were proverbially tenacious of their 
Church privileges ; and perhaps uiore distin- 
guished for jealousy of their rights in this re- 
spect, than for any other characteristic. 'Now, 
is it to be believed, that suck' a people, after 
having, by special Divine appointment, enjojTed 
the right and privilege of bringing their infant 
children with them into the Church and into 
covenant with God, by having the visible token 
placed upon them, — I ask. Is it to be believed 
that such a people, after having, by God's au- 
thority, enjoyed such a privilege for almost two 
thousand years, would, all of a sudden, and ivitk- 
out any express command of God, silently relin- 
quish this privilege, and consent to have their 
infant offspring thenceforth excluded from the 
pale of the Church, and from the benefit of 
God's covenant, notwithstanding that covenant 
still remains good to all who wear its seal ? 
Who can believe such a thing ? No ; instead 
of silently acquiescing in such a change, they 
would have raised a remonstrance loud enough 
to have been heard over the Christian world, 
and down to the end of time. Some of them 
made a mighty ado about Gentile converts not 



142 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

being circnmciscd ; and a convention of apos- 
ties and distingnislied brethren was called at 
Jeriisaleui to settle tlie question. How nuicli 
more would tliej have been oiiended, and have 
disturbed the peace of the Cliurch, if an attempt 
had been made to exclude their own children 
from her pale, and from the covenant of God ! 
But in all the records of that age, there is not 
the slightest intimation that they ever uttered 
a word of complaint on this point. The only 
rational way to account for this fact is by ad- 
mitting that they never were taught that any 
such change was to take place. For if the apos- 
tles had been in the habit of excluding the in- 
fant seed of believers from the Churcli by deny- 
ing to them the initiating ordinance and seal 
of the covenant, their prejudices would have 
been instantly roused to tumultuous excitement. 
The conclusion is then certain, that, from the 
practice of the apostles, the Jewish converts 
were put at perfect rest on tliis subject ; and 
were never led to suspect that tiie privilege they 
had so long enjoyed under the former dispensa- 
tion v>'as now withdrawn. AVhile their children 
were admitted along with themselves, they could 



ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 143 

be brought by degrees, as tliey were, quietly to 
reliuqnisli the bloody ch*cumcisioii, and to adopt 
baj>ti6iii ill its stead. 

YIII. The iinlelieving Jews never raised the 
objection against the Okrisiian CViurch^that they 
excluded their infant offspring. Tiiis they would 
certainly have done, if such had been the fact. 
The apostles maintained that tlie legal dispen- 
sation of the Church had passed away — that it 
ended with the offering up of the great atoning 
sacrifice — that the Church was now under the 
special administration of Christ ; and conse- 
quently, they claimed that the true Church and 
the covenant were, now with the Christians. 
This claim their enemies, the unbelieving Jews, 
resisted by ever}^ means in their power. They 
persecuted the apostles and other Christians 
with murderous fury ; and charged them with 
the attempt to abolish circumcision, and the 
ceremonies of the Levitical law ; but they never 
accused them of trying to shut out the infant 
offspring of believers from the Church and cov- 
enant of God. The plain reason was — the apos- 
tles tried to do no sucli thing. On tlie contrary, 
by their habits in adminisicring the initiatory 
ordinance in the households of believers, they 



showed, in their practice as well as bj their 
words, that they considered the covenant prom- 
ise as benig good to them and their children. 
Hence their bitterest enemies among the Jews 
bronghtno complaint against them on tliis point. 
They evidently had no thought of there being 
here any ground of complaint ; as they snrely 
\vonld have had, if the apostles had rejected the 
children of believers from that ordinance by 
which persons were initiated into the Christian 
Church, and by which their title to the covenant 
promise was believed to be sealed. 

IX. Bajytis'in is noio the only ordinance of 
initiation into the Churchy and the only seal 
or tohen of the comnant / and hence it he- 
longs to all who are the jrroper suhjects of chicrch- 
menibershijy. It belongs, therefore, to believing 
parents and their infant seed. If it is true, as I 
have shown, that the title of infants to a place 
in the Church has never been repealed, but still 
continues ; and tliat they are still entitled to the 
benefits of the covenant, then it follows irresist- 
ibly that the infant seed of believers are now 
entitled to the ordinance of baptism. Further 
argument here is needless. They cannot be de- 
nied the privilege of membership in the Church 



AEKAHAMIC COVENANT. 145 



and the seal of tlie covenant witliout being rob- 
bed of a precions and a sacred right wliich 
Heaven has granted them, and never recalled. 
They are just as much entitled to a covenant re- 
lation to God, and to wear the token and seal of 
the covenant, as their believing parents are. 
And since baptism is now the only way of ac- 
cess to the visible Church, and is the only visi- 
ble seal of the covenant, when believing parents 
refuse or neglect to offer their little ones to God 
in baptism, and thus neglect to bring them into 
covenant with him by placing upon them the 
covenant seal, they cruelly trespass on the rights 
of their children. They do them a grievous 
wrong, by shutting them out from the benefit 
of that gracious promise, " I will be a God to 
thee, and to thy seed after thee." Since the 
Church is the same, and the covenant the same, 
and the rights of infants the same, now as under 
the former dispensation, it is just as mucli the 
duty of parents in the Christian Church to liave 
their children baptized, as it ^vas of parents in 
the Jewisli Church to have their children cir- 
cumcised. 

Does any one ask of what icse it can be to 
an unconscious babe to have him baptized? 



14:6 INFANT baptism; 

He might with the same propriety ask of what 
use it could have been to an unconscious babe 
to have him circumcised. The one is of pre- 
cisely the same use, in respect to spiritual things, 
as the other ; and the proper answer in both 
cases is, It brings him within the fold of God's 
visible Church, and gives him a title to the ben- 
efit of God's everlasting covenant — "I will be 
thy God, and the God of thy seed." It is of the 
same use to the cliild as it is to the parent ; and 
if one values baptism as a privilege to himself, 
let him remember, it as an equal privilege to 
his child. 

God declared of the uncircumcised man-child 
among his ancient people, "That soul shall be 
cut off from his people ; he hath broken my 
covenant." The import of it was. He should 
be rejected from the privileges of the Church, 
and all the benefits of the covenant. He should 
sustain no nearer relation to God than the child 
of an unconverted heathen. He might, indeed, 
by sovereign grace, be afterwards led to offer 
himself to God, and be circumcised ; but the 
parent could plead no covenant promise in his 
behalf. x\nd if he should be left to perish, it 
would be no more than the parent might expect 



ABKAIIAMIC COVENANT. 147 

from liaviiis: neglected his clutj, and slighted the 
covenant of God in regard to his seed. 

The same thing is true in respect to the un- 
baptized children of Christian parents. They 
are kept out of the Church and out of the cove- 
nant ; — as much so as the children of the wicked 
heathen. It is true that they may, perhaps, be af- 
terwards converted and received into the Church. 
But whatever faithfulness in other respects the 
parent may employ, having neglected his child's 
baptism, he can plead no covenant promise of 
the Lord to be 'the God of his seed ;' and can- 
not, therefore, pray for his child with that assu- 
rance which he might, if he had the promise of 
God's covenant to encourage and support his 
faith. And if that child continues to live an 
alien from God to the end of his days, it is no 
more than the parent practically consented to 
by neglecting to offer him in baptism, and thus 
bring him within the scope of the covenant 
promise. For us to neglect the baptism of our 
children is to despise the covenant which God 
has made with us in their behalf; precisely as 
if a member of tlie Jewish Church had neglect- 
ed to circumcise his son. The Lord is displeased 
with it ; and we need not be surprised if he 



148 

leaves tliein in alienation and unbelief to j^ierish. 
But the j^ioiis parent who solemnly dedicates 
his children to God, and treats the covenant as 
if it were as valuable to liis seed as to himself; 
and thus honors it bj causing its seal to be 
placed upon them, has a firm ground of confi- 
dence w^hen he bows before God in behalf of 
his children. His iaith can grasp the gracious 
promise, "I will be a God to thee, and to thj 
seed after thee ; " and he is j ust as certain of 
being heard and favorably answered,as when he 
pleads in faith for the fulfilment of any other 
divine promise. God's promises to believers are 
all conditioned upon our faith ; and the chief 
reason why our own prayers are not more uni- 
formly answered in favor of our children, is be- 
cause we exercise so little faith in the promise 
of God's covenant. But if we dedicate our chil- 
dren to God in baptism in honor of the covenant, 
we have thenceforth special encouragement to 
instruct them and pray for them. The promise 
of God in regard to them is the life and strength 
of our faith. 

Let not the baptism of infants, then, be ridi- 
culed or despised. Let it not be lightly es- 
teemed. To despise it is to despise the cove- 



AliliAIIAMIC COVEN^LNT. 149 

naiit of Gtnl. Xay, it is to despise God himself, 
as 'tlie God of our seed after us.- Eatlier, let 
us revere lice it as appointed of tlie Lord ; and 
tiiankfully improve it for the benefit of our chil- 
dren, and the support of our faith. 



CHAPTER VI. 

INFANT BAPTISM HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 

An important question to be decided in the 
discussion of infant baptism, relates to the great 
Commission given by Christ to the ministers of 
his Church, " Go ye therefore and teach [Gr. 
discljjle] all nations, baptizing them in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost." (Matt. 28 : 19.) What did the Saviour 
mean by this command to disciple and baptize 
all nations ? In what sense did he use the ex- 
pression, " all nations " ? Did he intend by it 
only adult persons, and such as were capable of 
repenting and believing the gospel ? Or did he 
-also mean to "include their infant offspring? 

There can be no reasonable doubt that the 
apostles correctly understood his meaning, what- 
ever it was. And it may essentially aid us in 
the investigation of this question to enquire, 
What loould the a/postles most naturally under- 



HISTORICAL akgvmk:nt. 151 

stand the Saviour to meaiif To ascertain this 
point correctly, Ave need to consider tlie estab- 
lished usages of the Church witli whicli they 
had been familiar from their childhood. Tliey 
were all Jews by birth and education. And 
being Jews, the rite of baptism could not have 
been a new thing to them. It is well known 
that the Jews had long, if not always, practiced 
it, whenever they received into the Church a 
convert, or proselyte as he was called, from an- 
othei* nation. Besides being circumcised with 
his male children, such convert was hajytizedv^^itYi 
the children of his household, male and female. 
This was intended as a rite of purification. The 
fact that baptism was so administered is indubi- 
tably established- by several English and Latin 
writers of unquestionable credit, as Hammond, 
Lightfoot, Selden, Ainsworth, and others; who 
cite abundance of passages from Jewish wri- 
tings, both in the Hebrew and Chaldee langua- 
ges, which place tlie fixct beyond a doubt. It 
has been disputed whether the children of natu- 
ral Jews were baj^tized nnder the former dispen- 
sation. Probably they were not. Yet all agree 
that the infant children of proselytes from other 
nations were baptized, both male and female. 



152 INFANT baptism; 

And it was common among the Jews to call such 
baptized chWdven proseh/tes, as well as tlieir pa- 
rents. Sncli passages as the following abound 
in their writings : — 

'•'If, with a irroselyte, his sons and his daugh- 
ters he made jproselijtes, that vjhich is done hy the 
father redounds to their goodP 

Again, " A proselyte that is iinder age is hap- 
tized upon the li'nowledge of the house of judg- 
ment, [the synagogue, or church of the place,] 
and they hecorne to him a father P 

And again, " An Israelite that talces a little 
heathen infant, and baptizes him for a proselyte ^ 
hehold, he is a pfroselyteP '^- 

Let it be remembered, then, tliat it had been 
a long established custom in tlie Jewish Church, 
in which tlie apostles were brought up, to bap- 
tize the infant children of other nations^ when 
their parents were converted and baptized ; and 
to call such baptized qXxWXyqw jyi'^-^f-lyt^s ; which 
means, in this connection, much tlie same thing 
as disciples. Tlie act of circumcising and bap- 
tizing them was called p)roselyting^ or disci'pling 
them. Let these facts be borne in mind, and then 
we can easily undei'stand that our Saviour's com- 

* See Wall's " Conference." 



HISTORICAL AJJGUMENT. 153 

raand, " Go, disciple all nations, baptizing 
tliem," &c., must be intended to incbide infants 
as well as adults. It is an obvious rule of inter- 
pretation, that words should be taken in that 
sense in which they were current at the time 
and place in which they were spoken. And, 
accustomed as the apostles had always been to 
seeing baptism administered to converts from 
the heathen nations, and to their infant children ; 
and used as they were to hearing it spoken of 
as maMng them proselytes^ whether adults or in- 
fants ; now, when they heard the Saviour using 
substantially the same form of expression, " Go, 
disciple, [or make disciples,] all nations, bap- 
tizing them " etc., they could hardly fail to un- 
derstand him as intending that they should bap- 
tize infants as well as adults. Such being the 
custom of the Jews, and such the use of lan- 
guage, it would seem obviously necessary, if he 
meant that in baptizing the nations they should 
not baptize infants, as had usually been done, 
that he should have said so. But he said noth- 
ing on the subject ; and of course left them to 
understand his language in the common accep- 
tation, which would require the baptismboth of 
believing adults and their infant offspring. Sup- 
&* 



154 INFANT baptism; 

pose the commission had been, " Go ye, there- 
fore, raid teach all nations, circumcising them," 
(fee, would they not, in that case, haye under- 
stood that they yere to circumcise the infants 
of believers, as ^yell as their parents? Undoubt- 
edly thej would, unless they were specitically 
instructed otherwise. But why ? Plainly, be- 
cause they knew that circumcision was usually 
administered to infants. And so, too, they knew 
that baptism was usually administered to the in- 
fants of those who were baptized into the Church 
from othe7' nations. And now, when they were 
commanded to go and " disciple all nations, 
baptizing them," with no exception being ex- 
pressed in regard to infants, they must have un- 
derstood it as requiring them to baptize the in- 
fants of belieying parents, as had always been 
done. And the Saviour evidently intended that 
they should understand it so. Tlis personal 
treatment of little children in their presence had 
been such as coincided with this view. They 
had heard him say, "Suffer the little children to 
come unto me, and forbid them not ; for of such 
is the kingdom of heaven : " — a form of ex- 
pression totally ii-reconcilable, by any fair in- 
terpretation, with the idea that thereafter they 



niSTOElCAL ARGUMENT. 155 

were not to be allowed any nearer visible rela- 
tionship to liim and his Cliurch than tlie unbap- 
tized heathen; but })erfectly natural, on the sup- 
position that they are still to be embraced with- 
in the pale of the visible Church. Indeed, tliere 
is nothing in all tlie recorded instructions of 
Christ which could lead the apostles to suspect 
that, in discipling and baptizing the nations, they 
were not to continue the practice of baptizing 
the infant seed of converted and baptized pa- 
rents, as had always been the custom in the 
Church to which they belonged. 

I see not how the force of this argument can 
be evaded, but by denying the custom in the 
Jewish Church of baptizing Gentile proselytes, 
and the children of their households. And no 
person acquainted with the historic testimony on 
the subject will attempt to deny a fact so well 
attested. It cannot be disputed without reject- 
ing the testimony of Maimonides, the most eni- 
inent of all the Jewish Rabbins since the Chris- 
tian era, as well as several of the early Talmudic 
writers, whose works, amongJ:he Jews, were re- 
garded as second in sacredness only to the in- 
spired canon. Indeed the fact is conceded on 
all hands, amone: the learned. And when the 



156 iNFAXT baptism; 

commission to disciple and baptize the nations is 
interpreted in the liglit of this fact, I see not how 
unprejudiced minds can p.void tlie conclusion 
that its natural import requires the baptism both 
of believing parents and tlieir infant oifspring, 
agreeably to the familiar and long-continued 
usage of the Church in the case of converted 
Gentiles. Tlie only thing new in the adminis- 
tration of the ordinance, so far as appears from 
the instructions of Christ, was, that they were 
to baptize in the name of the Trinity. There is 
not the remotest intimation that tlie door was 
now to be shut against infants ; but every thing 
recorded warrants the belief that no ciiange in 
this res])ect was intended, and they were still to 
be admitted just as tliey liad always been. If 
tliis view of the subject is correct, as 1 think 
must be evident, then we have, in tliis commis- 
sion of Christ to the apostles, a distinctly im- 
plied command to baptize the infant children of 
baptized believers. 

This representation is corroborated by the 
a/posiol'(C jyractice of haptizing hoKseholds ; and, 
in turn, it throws light on that practice. Sev- 
eral examples of household baptism, as the rea- 
der knows, are recorded in the Xew Testament : 



JIISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 157 

particularly those of the Philippian jailor, Ste- 
phaniis, and Lydia. It is true tliat these exam- 
ples wmild not be siifficient to establish the au- 
thority of infant baptism, if there were nothing 
more ; because we do not certainly know whetlier 
there were or were not infants in those families. 
The sacred writers have not told us ; and the most 
that we can have on the subject is conjecture. 
It would, however, be a little singular if there were 
not infants in at least soujc one or irrore of them. 
But I think we cannot prove that there were, or 
that there were not.'-^' And the only certain ev- 
idence afforded by these examples is, that it was 
a common practice of the apostles to baj^tize 
househokh. But when we consider tliat the 
apostles, situated as they were, must have under- 
stood tlie commission to baptize the nations as 
intended to include, not only the adults who be- 
lieved, but also their infant children, if now we 
find them ixoinii; amon<j: the nations and fre- 
cpiently baptizing h()useliolds,in perfect accord- 
ance with that understanding, it affords a very 
stronor confirmation of the foregoino; argument, 

* Mr. Tavlor lias laliored ]>liiiologitally and very ingenious- 
ly to prove that tliese linusehokls did coiitaiu infants; but I 
doubt whether liis argument will satisfy the popular mind. 



158 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

showing tliat the infant seed of baptized belie- 
vers are, by the aiitlioritj of Christ, entitled to 
baptism. If the commission had been, " Go, 
disciple all nations, circumcising them," and'theu 
we had found the apostles in the habit of circum- 
cising households, who would have hesitated to 
regard it as an evidence of their circumcising 
infants as well as adults ? Ko one, certainly ; 
because, since infants had always been circum- 
cised, and the commission made no exception in 
the case of infants, to speak of circumcising a 
man and his household woulitl be the natural 
way of stating the circumcision of infants along 
with their believing parents. And if infants 
were not allowed to be circumcised under this 
commission, to speak in such a general manner 
of circumcising households, with no qualifying 
word to restrict the sense, would seem highly 
improper, because very likely to mislead. In 
such a case, when households are mentioned, in- 
fants ought to be especially excepted ; otherwise 
it would be fair to suppose them included. And 
just so, since it had always been the custom to 
'baptize the households of men converted from the 
ivi;>latr(>us nations, including their infant chil- 
dren of both sexes, now when the commission 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 159 

is given, " Go, disciple all nations, baptizing 
them," and no exception of infants is expressed ; 
and thereupon we iind tlie apostles going among 
the heatlien nations preaching tlie gospel and 
baptizing Jtouseholds, how can we do otherwise 
than regard tliis as a striking evidence of their 
baptizing infants? To speak of their baptizing 
households wonld be th& natural way^ in such 
circumstances, of stating the baptism of infants 
along with their believing parents. And if in- 
fants were not alloived to be baptized, to speak 
in this general manner of baptizing households, 
with no word to restrict tlie sense, would seem 
to be exceedingly improj^er, Ijecause eminently 
adapted to mislead. But I cannot believe the 
sacred writers have stated facts in a way so di- 
rectly adapted to mislead their readers. I much 
prefer to tliink tliey have expressed themselves 
in such a way that the natural impression from 
their words will l)e the accurate one. That im- 
pression, considering all the circumstances, I 
hesitate not to say, is plaiidy this; that, in their 
habit of baptizing households, they did not ex- 
clude infants. 

A2:J'eeal)lv to tliis is the testimonv of Justin 
Martyr, who lived and wrote about forty years 



160 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

after the apostles. In one of liis apologies for 
the Christians, he speaks of ''several jier^sons 
among them, sldif or seventy years old^ wlioioere 
disci'pled to Christ in infancy^ which must liave 
occnrrecl in the time of the apostles. Bj their 
being-' discipledbi infancy ^\\q means that they 
were haptized in infancy ; and thns entered the 
school of Christ as learners, or disciples, which 
means the same thing. They were probably 
among the snbjects of honsehold baptism, as it 
was practiced by the apostles. 

1 will now call the reader's attention to an- 
other important fact, sustaining the view already 
taken ; viz. Infant Ijaptism 'ivas generally p)rac- 
ticed in the earlier ages succeeding the apostles. 
In proof of this fact I refer, 

First, to the testimony of Ireneus^ Bishop of 
Lyons, who wrote about seventy years after the 
apostles. In common with many of the early 
Christian f\ithers, he fell into the mistake of 
regarding l>aptism as regeneration, and of 
supposing it to be essential to salvation. Of 
Christ he says, "i7^ came to save cdl persons hy 
himself ; cdl, T say^ v^ho are i^egener cited hy him 
to God — infants^ and little ones^ and children^ 
and young men, and old. meii.^'' That by " re- 



in'^TORICAL ARGUMEXT. 16*1 

generatiid''^ lie means Ijajptized^ or born of water, 
as the word was commonly used in his day, is 
evident from what he says in another place. 
'-''When Christ gave the commandnient of regen- 
KRATiNG unto God, he said, ' Go and teach all 
nations, BAPTIZING them^^'' &c. This testimony 
is very explicit in designating the various stages 
of life, so that one cannot mistake it. He says, 
''iNFAxNTs, and lATi-LE ONES, and children, and 
young ine7i, and old menP All these classes 
were, in his time, regarded as proper suljects 
of baptism. Now, it is worthy to be remem- 
bered that this same Trenpus was born befoi'e the 
death of the apostle John, and was an intimate 
acquaintance and disciple of the venerable Pol- 
ycarp, who was John's own disciple. And from 
his intimacy with Polycarp, he had every op- 
portunity to know, and doubtless did know, 
what was the practice of the apostles on this 
subject. 

Again, TertuJlian, the lirst Latin author in the 
Church, who flourished about one hundred years 
after the apostles, is a valuable witness on this 
question. lie, too, liad adopted the prevailing 
error of his time, \iz. that ba})tisni was an oi-di- 
nance in whicli sin was washed away ; and he 

II 



162 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

supposed tliat sins committed after baptism were 
2}eGuliarly dangerous^ and could not be forgiven. 
He therefore advised that the baptism of infants 
should be delaj^ed until they should grow up 
and become confirmed in habits of virtue, unless, 
from some cause, there was imminent danger of 
their dying. Xow, the fact that Tertullian ad- 
vised the delay of baptism in the case of infants 
ordinarily, shows that it was then a customary 
practice in the Church to baptize them ; else 
there could have been no occasion for his giving 
such advice. And again, the fact that he per- 
mitted it in cases where their life appeared to 
be in danger shows that he ad\'ised the delay 
only from considerations of expediency^ and not 
because he considered it imlawftd to baptize 
them. It is a striking fact that, anxious as Ter- 
tullian was to dissuade the Church from the 
practice of baptizing infants, he never once in- 
timates that it is cm unautliorizcd' innovation^ 
and therefore unlawful. This, if it had been 
true, would have been the strongest as well as 
the most obvious and natural argument which 
he could have urged against it. And the fact 
that he does not use it — tliat he says nothing 
ahout the unlawfulness of the custom, but rests 



HISTOKICAL AltGLME>sT. I(j3 

his argument entirely on the ground of expedi- 
ency, shows that he considers the authonty and 
laiufiilness of infant baptism as not to be ques- 
tioned. Tertullian is sometimes referred to as a 
witness agabist the fact of infant baptism in the 
early Christian Churcli. But, in truth, his ob- 
jection demonstrates that the Church was then 
in the practice of it. He admits its existence 
by advising its delay ; and he admits its lawful- 
ness and authority by the nature of his objec- 
tion to it. 

Again, Origen^ a presbyter and lecturer of 
Alexandria, and a cotemporary with Tertullian, 
has various passages which illustrate and con- 
firm the antiquity of infant bai^tism. lie la- 
bored to prove the doctrine of original sin, or 
infant depravity, from the general practice of 
infant haptism. " TFAa/," says he, " is the rea- 
son loJiy the haijima of the Clmrch^ conferred 
for the remission of shis^ is also adviinistered 
to infants ? since^ were there nothing in infa^its 
that required forgiveness and mercy ^ the grace 
ofhajMsm might seem super fluo^is.''^ Again he 
argues, ''^Infants are baptized for the remission 
of sins. Of icJuit sins? or tchen have they 
sinned? or how^ i?i the case of little children^ 



164 J:s^'A^'T haptism: 

can any reason of the hirer [or baptism] hold 
good^ excejyt according to the sense ahave wen- 
tionedf j^o one is free from pollution^ tliough 
his life upon earth loere hut the length (fa day. 
And heeaiise, hy the sacrament of haptisin^ our 
pollutions are washed away^ therefore it is that 
iifants are haptized. For except a man he horn 
of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into 
the kingdom of heaven.''^ Yet again he says, 
" The Church hath received the tkadition from 
the arostles, that baptism ought to be admin- 
ISTERED TO INFANTS. For they to ichom the di- 
vine mysteries were committed kneic that there 
were, in cdl, those naturcd. defilements lohich must 
he washed away hy water and the Spirit.'' 

Isow, whatever may be thonglit of Origen's 
tlieciogy, or the doctrine of original sin as he held 
it, this much must be certain, tliat infant bap- 
tism was at that time a common practice in the 
Church. This writer founds an argument in 
favor of his doctrine on the baptism of infimts ; 
and attempts to show that their baptism would 
be an unmeaning ceremony, if it Avere riot true 
that they needed to be cleansed from sin. But 
such an argument could have had no force at 
all, or have ever occurred to that author's mind, 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 1G5 

if it liad not been a well-known fact tliat the 
Church had been in the constant practice of 
baj^tizing ini'ants. 

Let it be remembered that this was only about 
one hundred years after the apostles. We are 
often told that infant baptism is a Popish cor- 
ruption, and many are made to believe it ; but 
here is this eminent Christian writer, discoursing 
in this manner on the subject, within ahout one 
hundred years of the ajpostlei time^ axi^four h un- 
dred years hefore Popery had existence; and 
affirming in so many words, "The Church hath 

RECEIVED THE TRADITION FROM THE APOSTLES, THAT 
BAPTISM OUGHT TO BE ADMINISTERED TO INFANTS." 

Origen was born within eighty-five years of the 
apostolic age, of Christian parents, (his father 
having been a martyr,) and was himself, as he 
says, baptized in infancy. In the days of his 
parents, therefore, infant baptism was believed 
and practiced as an institution of apostolic au- 
thority. 

Once more. Cyprian., Bishop of Carthage, 
who wrote about one hundred and fifty years 
after the- apostles, gives an account of an eccle- 
siastical council which was held in his own 
church, and composed of sixty-six bishops, or 



16G INFANT BAPTISM ; 

pastors. The occasion of the council was this :' 
A certain country bishop, by the name of Fidus, 
entertained serious doubts wliethei* infants sliould 
not be baptized at the age of eight days, and no 
earlier ; in order that the Christian ordinance 
might more perfectly correspond witli circum- 
cision which it replaced. Tlie subject was likely 
to make some difficulty ; and, to settle the ques- 
tion, Cyprian called this council at Carthage. 
Sixty -six bishops assembled, and the question 
came before them, " Ought not haptisin to he 
administered to infants on the eighth day, ac- 
cording to the law of ciTcumcisionV The 
question was discussed at length, and finally de- 
cided unanimously, that the day was not mate- 
rial — that they were proper subjects of baptism 
from the day of their birth. This decision was 
communicated to the country bishop in a letter 
signed by Cyprian himself, by order and in be- 
half of the council. Here is a remarkable his- 
torical fact. In that large body of Christian 
pastors, assembled from different and distant 
parts of the Church, to discuss such a subject, 
the question was not even ra^wZ whether infants 
should be baptized at all, but only whether it 
should be on the eighth day. Kow, is it to be 



IIISTOEIGAL AEGUirENT. 167 

believed that, in one hundred and fifty years . 
after the apostles, so great an innovation as the 
baptism of infants, if it be called an innovation, 
could have been introduced, and have become 
so widely disseminated and perfectly established, 
that not a voice should have been raised against 
it in all that body of Christian ministers, many 
of whom might in all probability have been per- 
sonally acquainted with the immediate succes- 
sors of the apostles, and through them have 
known what the apostolic practice was ? It is 
utterly incredible. If the baptism of infants had 
not been known to be authorized by apostolic 
usage, before the question of Fidus could have 
been decided, the council must have had to set- 
tle the prior question, ivhether infants should he 
haptized at all. And the fact that this question 
was not even raised by any one, and that the 
council unanimously decided that the precise 
time of their baptism was not material, not only 
demonstrates that the baptism of infants was, at 
that early day, the general and undisputed cus- 
tom of the Church, but also affords convincinti^ 
evidence that it had come down from the apos- 
tles. 

But if the reader thinks otherwise, then let 



168 INFA^'T BAPTISM ; 

me ask, )V/t<')i did thiH custom commence? Who 
has ever read an account of its origin f Al- 
tliongli the history of the Church immediately 
after the apostles abounds in records of innova- 
tions, heresies, and schisms ; and every little de- 
viation from established doctriue or usage was 
made the subject of violent and long-continued 
controversy, yet not one word appears in regard 
to the introduction of infant haptism^ and not a 
sylable of controvei'sy was had on the subject.* 
Tiiink of this. Infant baptism an unauthorized 
innovation ! a mere human invention ! and yet, 
within one hundred and fifty years after the 
apostles, the whole Christian Church in the prac- 
tice of it! and, what is more incredible still, 
even in that most contentious period, not one 
word of controversy ever lieard on the subject 
of its divine authority ! Let them believe it 
who can. But we must all believe it, or else 
believe that the Church received the practice, 
as Origen affirms, from the aj)Ostles themselves, 
and therefore had no occasion to dispute about it. 
We know also that, in the fourth century of 

* No controversy was had before Tertiillian's time ; and 
then, none in regard to its authority, but only in regard to 
its expediency. 



niSTOlClCAL ARGUMENT. 1C9 

the Christian era, inlaiit baptism was universally 
practiced, on the ground of the xVbrahamic cov- 
enant : and was regarded as sanctioned by apos- 
tolic authority. To this fact there is any amount 
of testimony by eminent men of that age. Ati- 
gusthie is very explicit. " TFA/cA," says he, 
" the whole hody of the Church holds in the case 
of little infants who are baptized^ who certainly 
cannot helieve with their heart unto salvation ; 
and yet no Christian loill say that they are bap- 
tized in vainP Again he says, " The custom 
of the Church in baptizing infants must not be 
disregarded^ nor accounted useless / and it must 
by all means be believed to be an order from tJie 
ajpostles^'' He had. a long controversy with Pe- 
lagius on the doctrine of infant depravity, which 
doctrine Pelagius denied. Augustine urged that 
the baptism of infants implied and proved their 
depravity, since they were baptized, as was be- 
lived, for the remission of sin. And he charges 
it upon Pelagius that, in denying the depravity 
of infants, he virtually denies their right to bap- 
tism, and accounts the practice of it a useless 
ceremony. Pelagius repels the charge with 
indignation ; and says, " Men calumniate me^ 
hy cJiarging ine with a denial of infant baptism, 
H 



170 INFANT baptism; 

I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF ANY IMPIOUS HERETIC OR 
SECTARY WHO DENIED INFANT BAPTISM." lie laborS 

to prove that his sentiments on the subject of 
original sin do not involve any thing inconsistent 
with the divinely authorized practice of infant 
baptism. ]S[ow, the fact that both parties thus 
appeal to infant baptism as a test of their doctri- 
nal sentiments, shows how firmly and universally 
the practice was rooted in the Church. Pela- 
gius was strongly tempted, by his position in the 
controversy, to deny the validity of infant bap- 
tism ; — a thing which he certainly would have 
done, if tliere had been anything in all the dis- 
cussions and controversies of the time to show 
that it had not the sanction^of the aj^ostles, but 
had been introduced since their day. lie must 
have been thoroughly informed of the doctrine 
and practice of the Church in different parts of 
the world ; for he had traveled extensively — in 
Britain, Gaul, Ital}^, Africa, Egypt, and Pales- 
tine. And yet, instead of questioning the au- 
thority of this practice, he makes tlie affirmation 
above : " / ho/ve never heard of any impious 
heretic or sectary loJio denied infant haptismP 
This was in the fourtli century, and within less 
than three hundred years of the apostles. 



HISTOKICAL ARGUMEiXT. 171 

Much otlier testimony to the same purpose 
might be offered, but I need not detain the 
reader with it. The fact is established, as well 
as any fact in history can be, that all through 
that period, and for nearly a thousand years 
after the promulgation of Christianity by the 
apostles, infant baptism was universally prac- 
ticed in the Church ; and not a single sect or 
body of Christians in all the world could then 
be found who denied its validity. I say no sect^ 
or hody of Christians denied its validity. Ter- 
tullian, indeed, and perhaps some other individ- 
nals, objected to it on the ground before stated, 
viz. that sins committed after baptism were 
deemed peculiarly dangerous ; and hence, as a 
matter of expediency, he would have it delayed. 
But TertuUian urged his objection against un- 
married adults as strongly as against infants, and 
for the same reason. Neither himself, nor any 
who adopted his views, ever called in question 
the validity of infant baptism. And the fact that 
jie thus objected to it proves the prevalence of 
the custom in his time, which was only about 
one hundred years after the apostles. I will 
only add, 

If infant baptism is unauthorized in the Chris*- 



172 INFANT baptism; 

tiaii Clnircli, it must have begun to be practiced 
in tlie very first, or at latest, in the second gen- 
eration succeeding the apostles — a time when 
there were ample means for knowing with" en- 
tire certainty what the apostolic practice Avas. 
Wliy, then, I ask again, have we no account of 
its commencement ? Why no record, or frag- 
ment of record, of that stern- and powerful re- 
sistance which it must have encountered when 
first introduced ? There must have been many 
faithful and conscientious men in the Church at 
that time — as their frequent martyrdoms prove 
there were — many who would have earnestly 
spoken and written against it. On every other 
subject, the slightest novelty of doctrine, or in- 
novation of practice, w^as strongly disputed, not 
only in private discussions and ecclesiastical 
councils, but in books and epistles, which have 
come dow^n to us, in whole or in part, so as abun- 
dantly to acquaint us with their nature and ori- 
gin. But in regard to the introduction of infant 
baptism, there is nothing of the kind. Instead 
of it, almost immediately after the apostles are 
in their graves, we find the custom generally 
practiced in the Church, with no more dispute 
about it, as to its divine authority, than about the 



i;i>TOKKAL AKGUMEXT. 173 

baptism of adult converts. Xow, wliile tins fact 
is nnacconntably strange and unnatural, on the 
assuui])tii»n tliat infant baptism was brought 
into the Cliurcli without antlioritv, it is perfectly 
natural and consistent, if we admit that this 
practice had the sanction of Qhrist and his apos- 
tles ; and, taken along with the preceding ar- 
guments, affords, as I think, unanswerable proof 
that the Saviour and his apostles did give to it 
their sanction. 

I have now done with the discussion of infant 
baptism, so far as relates to its vindication, or 
defence, as a divinely instituted practice. I 
have endeavored to disclose to the reader what 
I believe to be the mind of God on this subject ; 
and I leave him to give such weight to the ar- 
guments, and to make such use of them, as his 
own judgment and conscience shall approve. 



CHAPTER VII. 

INFANT BAPTISM DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 

I ENDEAVORED ill tliG last chapter, to show that, 
in the great Commission, the Saviour gives a 
distinctly implied command to baptize infants 
as well as adults. This was done by showing 
that it had been a long-established custom in the 
Jewish Church,' whenever men of other nations 
were converted, to baptize them and their house- 
holds, including their infant children. It was 
shown that the apostles, being Jews, must 
have been familiar with this custom ; and that 
when the Saviour commanded them to 'go, dis- 
ciple and baptize all nations,' stating no excep- 
tion in tlie case of infants, they must have un- 
derstood, agreeably to the established usage of 
the Church, that they were to- baptize, not only 
believing adults, but also their households, in- 
cluding the infant members ; and that the 
Saviour must have intended them to understand 
him so. 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 175 

This view was shown to be sustained bj the 
corresponding practice of the apostles in bap- 
tizing households, without their deeming it im- 
portant to tell us whether those households were 
comi^osed entirely of adult believers, or partly 
of infants and children. 

Consistently with this, it was shown that, du- 
ring several of the first ages succeeding tlie apos- 
tles, the Church was in the constant practice of 
baptizing the infant children of baptized be- 
lievers ; while no one disputed the authority of 
the practice, and no one attempted to show 
when, or by whom, it was introduced, except to 
say that it was derived from the apostles. AH 
this was believed to form a complete argument 
on the subject ; and, taken along with the argu- 
ment from the Abrahamic covenant, as exhib- 
ited in the previous chapter, it placas the divine 
authority of infant baptism, as I conceive, be- 
yond a reasonable doubt. 

But even after the argument is settled, and 
shown to be conclusive in favor of the practice, 
there are some questions on the subject fre- 
quently coming u]) in the minds of sincere 
Christians, and greatly perplexing them ; — 
questions which need to be solved in order 



170' IN FA N' r B A PTT S^f ; 

that the benefits of this ordinance, in its appli- 
cation to infants, may be properly realized by 
the Churcli without embaiTassment. I design, 
therefore, in the present chapter, to discuss and 
answer some of the most perplexing of these 
questions ; and I do it the more willingly, be- 
cause several of them are often urged upon us 
by those who deny the propriety of infant bap- 
tism. 

1. The question has been asked by some who 
doubt not the lawfulness of infant church-mem- 
bership, "j^ it true that hajytism initiates the 
children of believers into the Churchy and into 
covenant with God? Are they not within the 
Church, and embraced in the arms of the cov- 
enant, hefore their baptism ? Are they not 
brought into these relations by their very birth ? '^ 
I think not. " But," it is asked ao^ain, " was not 
tlie Jewish child a member of the Church be- 
fore his circumcision ? Was he not born such? " 
In my opinion, lie was not. I know it is said of 
the uncircumcised man-child, " That soul shall 
be CUT OFF from his people ; he hath bkoken my 
covenant." And this form of expression, in the 
translation, has led some to think that children 
of the Jews were born into the Church, under 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 177 

the privileges of the covenant. And by anal- 
ogy, they suppose that tlie children of clmrch- 
members nnder the gospel are.at their birth, em- 
braced within the arms of. the covenant, and 
members of the visible Church. Bnt I believe 
this i> a mistake. The expression, " shall be cut 
OFF from his people," does not, in the original, 
necessarily imply that he had previously been 
in covenant as a member of the Church, and 
was now to be excommunicated ; but, that he 
should be destroyed, or severed from his kin- 
dred and countrymen as an offender, for having 
virtually refused^ and therefore despised God's 
covenant. The blame of this offence was not, 
of course, imputed to the child, but to his pa- 
rents, until he grew up and refused or neglected 
to offer lihnself to God in the ordinance of cir- 
cumcision. 

And when it is said, " He hath broken my 
covenant,'" it does not mean that he had pre- 
viously been in covenant, and had now vio]ate4l 
an enc^ao-ement whicli that covenant bound him 
to fulfil. The idea of the original Avould be 
more correctly expressed by saying, " He hath 
frustrated my covenant." That is, he has baf- 
fled its gracious design^ so far as relates to him- 

II* 12 



ITS INFANT baptism; 

self, by refusing to accept and ratify it. Con- 
sequently, such an one was to be denied the 
privileges of church-fellowship, and all the ben- 
efits of the covenant prouiise. 

But it may be asked again, Does not God say 
to Abram Ijefore his circumcisio7i, " As for 
me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou 
shalt be a father of many nations ? " He does ; 
and in respect to a numerous posterity, and the 
possession of Canaan, he had indeed already, on 
a former occasion, given Abrara his pledge. 
But the grand covenant promise — that which is 
still valid and constitutes the basis of the Church 
— that which is, by way of eminence, called 
" THE COVENANT," had uot bccu given before, and 
is expressed in these words, " I avill establish 
my covenant between me and thee, and thy 
seed after thee, in their generations, to be a God 
unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." The 
command to circumcise was given in this same 
interview, and as a part of the same transaction. 
This ordinance was one of the essential constit- 
uents of the covenant — its visible " token,'^ and, 
as Paul tells us, its ''seal.''' Without it the cov- 
enant was not valid, or of any force. It becomes 
of force when its terms are accepted and its seal 



DIFFICULTIES EXI'LAINED. 179 

is set. Previously to this, it is rather to be 
viewed as a covenant jjroposed — not a covenant 
ratified. And when he sajs, " I will establish 
my covenant between me and thee," the mean- 
ing evidently is, ' I do this with the proviso, that 
you consent to, and accept, the terms of my cov- 
enant ; which are, on 3'our part, " Walk before 
me and be thou perfect " — [maintain a life of 
faith and obedience] ; together v/ith the promise 
on my part, " I will be a God unto thee, and to 
thy seed after thee." But, as a token or witness 
of this engagement, and as the seal of its author- 
ity, I appoint the ordinance of circumcision. 
"When you consent to the terms and affix the 
seal, the covenant takes effect. Ton are then 
in covenant with God, and in that visible Church 
which this transaction is intended to establisli.' 
Tlius, I suppose, the gi'eat covenant with Abra- 
ham did not become valid to him — was not a 
covenant in force^ until he was circumcised. 
The same was true in respect to his posterity, 
and also in respect to proselytes from other na- 
tions, who became Abraham's seed by faith, and 
their children witli them. Tlie covenant, in its 
relation to them, required the same ratification 
as in the case of Abraham. They, indeed, were 



180 

entitled^ by God's special grant therein ex- 
pressed, to have tlie covenant ratified and con- 
firmed to tlienij as truly so as Abraham himself 
was. But it was not infact?>o ratified and con- 
firmed to them, until the seal was set and the 
token given. They differed from the children 
of unbelievers in this respect, viz. they had a 
right, by divine grant, to he circumcised, and 
thus to have the covenant made good to them ; 
whereas others had not. But to have aright to 
possess a privilege is a different thing from ac- 
tually possessing it. The seed of Abraham had 
a right to possess the privilege of church-mem- 
bership in covenant v^'itli God ; but they did not 
ill fact possess this privilege until they were 
circumcised. Circumcision sealed and confirmed 
the covenant to them, and tlius initiated them 
into the visible Church. Before his circum- 
cision, I suppose the Jevrisli child held a rela- 
tion to the Church and covenant similar to that 
which Abraham held after this interview with 
God, and before he was circumcised. 

Analogous to this, I regard the unbaptized 
children of church-members as holding a rela- 
tion to the Church and covenant similar to that 
of an unbaptized adult convert, now become the 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 181 

friend of God, as Abraham was. Tliat is to say, 
they liaye a divinely granted right to be ad- 
mitted into covenant and church-membersliip 
through the ordinance of baptism, wliereas the 
chiklren of unbelievers have not this right. But, 
as the adult convert is not embraced in this cov- 
enant, or in the visible Church, previously to 
his baptism, so neither are the children of 
church-members. In both cases, baptism is the 
initiating ordinance — as circumcision was to 
the children of the Jews, and to the proselyte 
from the Gentiles. 

2. The question is often asked, " What is the 
relation which haptized infants hear to the 
Church f Or, is there anything j^eciiUar in re- 
gard to their church-connection f " I answer, 
As I view the matter, their relation to the 
Church is somewhat peculiar. I consider them 
as realhj mcmhers of the Church general; but 
not especially members of any one distinct 
hranch of it rather than another. By baptism, 
they are introduced Into the visible family of 
God, and into covenant with him. They are 
baptized into the name or family of the Holy 
Trinity ; and, by covenant between God and 
their parents acting in their behalf, they are 



1S2 INFANT B\p-nsM ; 

thus constituted members of tlie Lord's visible 
household. The terms of the covenant are, in 
substance, " Ye shall be my people, and I will 
be your God." By baptism, the parent consents 
to and ratifies this covenant, in behalf of him- 
self and his children. When he submits to the 
ordinance personally, he promises to serve God 
himself; and when he offers up his children in 
baptism, he engages that they too shall serve the 
Lord ; or at least, that he will do all in his power 
to influence them to it. Tlie parent, so to speak, 
transfers his child from his own to the family and 
authority of Christ by indentures ; and the child 
is, to all intents and purposes, hound to God. Tlie 
parent thus comes under peculiar responsibilities 
in regard to the spiritual training of the child, 
and the child is placed under peculiar obliga- 
tions to love and obey the Lord. He now be- 
longs to that class of persons whom God has 
promised to regard with special favor ; and un- 
less he willingly forfeits his claim, by abandon- 
ing his duty and despising his obligations, he is 
graciously entitled to all the benefits of the cov- 
enant by which the Lord binds himself to be a 
Father and a God to liis people. He is, in- 
deed, visibly a member of the general Church of 



DrTFTCULTIES EXPLAINFID. 183 

Christ : and his baptism is a permanent seal at- 
testing his interest in the everlasting covenant. 
But it may perhaps be objected, ' If baptized 
infants are members of the Church general, and 
not especially of any j^articular branch of it 
more than another, then that particular branch 
of the 'Church within which they are baptized 
and educated, owes them no special duties in 
regard to their spiritual training, anj^ more than 
another, or than all other branches of the Church/ 
ITo, this does not follow. The branch of the 
Church Aivithin which they are baptized and ed- 
ucated does owe them special duties; not, how- 
ever, on account of any nearer ecclesiastical re- 
lations, but on account of closer jproximity and 
nearer social relations ; — just as we owe special 
duties to the souls of all classes in our immedi- 
ate vicinity, and to those bound to us by special 
social ties, which are not owed to them by Chris- 
tians in France or India. And if it be insisted 
on, that ba})tism brings its subject into s[)eciai 
connection with some particular bj'anch of the 
Church, then I would ask, To what particular 
branch of the Cliurch is that infant united whose 
father is converted by the lal)ors of a traveling 
missionarv in the wilds of Oregon, where no 



184 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

local Clinrch organization exists ; and who, be- 
ing baptized bj the missionary, immediately 
offers in baptism his infant son ? In tliis case, 
both the father and the child are, by baptism, 
introduced into the visible Chnrch general^ but 
not especially into any one particular branch of 
it. The same is true any where else. Baptism 
introduces one into the Church general, wdiile 
the act oi 2?ersonally assenting to its particular 
covenant^ according to the prescribed form, unites 
one especially with a local branch of the Church. 
All baptized infants are members of the Church 
general ; but not until' they are old enough to 
gi\;e, and actually do give, their consent person- 
ally to the covenant of a particular Chnrch, do 
they become members especially of such partic- 
ular Church. 

3. It is often asked, ' If haptized infants are 
niemhcrs of the Ckicrch^ lohy are they not admit- 
ted to the sacrament of the Lord's Sujpperf I 
answer, God has not authorized it. Why he has 
not, we are not told. One reason may probably 
be. They are incapable of profiting by this ordi- 
nance. It does not follow, because baptized in- 
fants are members of the Church, that they are 
therefore entitled to all the privileges of the 



DIFFICULTIES EXPI-AINED. 185 

Church. They are also members of the civil 
community ; but this does not entitle them to 
civil privileges which they are incapable of en- 
joying — the privilege, for instance, of voting, 
or of being chosen to office. The peculiar na- 
ture of the Lord's Supper is such that, in order 
to be benefited by it, he who receives it must, 
by faith, " discern the Lord's body." And since 
infants are incapable of this, it can of course be 
no privilege to them to participate in tlie ordi- 
nance. The same also may be said of tliem 
after attaining to adult years, if they do not be- 
come renewed by the Spirit of God. Wliile un- 
renewed they exercise no true faith ; and are, 
therefore, incapable of being benefited by this 
sacrament ; and hence, until they give evidence 
of being spiritually renewed, they are not to'be 
received to the Lord's Sujjper. 

4. If^ after haptism^ they give evidence of he- 
coming real Christians^ lut have not yet them- 
selves assumed the responsihiUty of the covenant 
in a 2^'^d)l'ic proftssion of their faith ^ have they 
then a right to tJie sacramental Supper f I an- 
swer, My own o])inion is that they liave not ; 
because, what they now do, they do as intelli- 
gent moral agents. This must be assumed, if 



186 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

we suppose them to exercise faith. And, as in- 
telligent moral agents, they act on their oivn. re- 
sponsibility, and not on the responsibility of 
their parents. And if we regard them as acting 
on their own responsibility, we must require 
them, of their own free will, to assume the re- 
sponsibilities of the covenant. The covenant 
into which their parents entered on their behalf 
is not of such a nature as to exclude the neces- 
sity of an expression of their own will in rela- 
tion to it, whenever they are capable of doing 
it understandingly. And it is not reasonable 
that they should, in the exercise of their own 
moral agency, and on their own responsibility, ^ 
partake of the children's bread, until they have 
voluntarily acknowledged their connection with 
the family. Unless we admit that the reception 
of the Lord's Supper is itself a declaration, and 
a suiiicient declaration of faith, they cannot rea- 
sonably be admitted to this ordinance until they 
have, in a public and more explicit manner, 
avowed their faith and their allegiance to Christ. 
5. Suppose, as is sometimes the case, the hap- 
tized person, after adult years, does not enter into 
sp>cckd connection with any particular hranch of 
the Church in aprofession of faith ^ hut, on the 



DIFFICULTIES EXI'LAINED. 187 

contrary^ casts aioay his cavenant ■privileges^ and 
hecomes a notorious sinner / why is he not made 
a subject of disciplil^ef and ichy shoidd he not 
he formally cast oat of the Churchy if he cannot 
he reclaimed f I answer, Because, in this case, 
the thing is impossible. Such a person, it is 
true, has broken covenant with God, but not 
with men. His baptism brought him into no 
covenant directly with men ; nor did it, as has 
been shown, unite him with any particular 
branch of the Church rather than another ; al- 
though it did unite him with the Church gen- 
eral. And God, by the constitution of the 
Church, has not put it in the power of men to 
exercise church discipline for a breach of cove- 
nant which is not made specifically with men 
composing some local church organization. To 
pass sentence on one who belongs to the Church 
general, but not particularly to any one branch 
of it, would require that the whole Church of 
Christ on earth should be called, together, be- 
cause no one part alone has jurisdiction over 
him. But this is plainly impossible, and of 
course a formal excommunication is impossible. 
And besides, all the essential purposes of excom- 
munication are accomplished by the voluntary 



188 

abstinence of such baptized pciv>on from any 
communion witli the Church. 

6. Does not tlie lyractice of infant 'baptism tend 
to corrupt religion^ hy impairing the spiritnality 
of the Church ? I know this is often affirmed 
by those who oppose the practice ; but I am not 
aware that any proof was ever given tliat such 
is the fact. How should it impair the spiritual- 
ity of the Church and corrupt religion ? Are 
parents less likely to be spiritual and devoted 
Christians, when all the love tliey bear to their 
children is added to every other motive to bind 
them to a holy life ? Having brought their chil- 
dren into covenant with God, and thus obtained 
for them the divine promise, will they not be 
the more zealous, on this account, to maintain a 
high standard of piety? since the fulfihiient of 
that promise depends very much on the influ- 
ence which the parent exerts in forming the 
habits of the child. Yes, when Cliristian pa- 
rents honor the Abrahamic covenant by dedica- 
ting their children to God in baptism, all tlieir 
parental affection, is enlisted, along with their 
o^'^n covenant vows, to make tliem ftiithful, in 
order that the conditions of the covenant niay 
be met, and the fulfilment of the promise be so- 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLAtXED. 189 

cured to their cliildren. Tliis. certainly, does 
not tend to ini])nir, l)iit to increase, the spiritu- 
ality of believing ^'x^/'ey^^.s-. 

Again, are such cluldren^ when they come to 
maturity and assume the responsibilities of the 
covenant themselves, and enter into communion 
with a particular Church, any the less likely to 
prove Sj)iritual and devoted Christians for hav- 
ing enjoyed the privileges of the covenant, with 
the pious training Avhich it is adapted to secure ? 
Nay, such a training, securing the fulfilment of 
that gracious promise, "I will be thy God," 
must be adapted to make tlie most thoroughly 
principled, steadfast, and spiritual Christians in 
the Church. If, then, the practice of infant 
baptism tends neither to make the parents nor 
the cliildren less spiritual and devoted Chris- 
tians, but decidedly the reverse, how can it op- 
erate to ' impair the spirituality of the Church 
and corrupt religion?' 

Again, there are no facts to justify the asser- 
tion that this practice tends to religious corrup- 
tion. I am aware that the papal apostacy is 
often ascribed to this cause ; but without the shad- 
ow of proof to sustain it. It was State jMtron- 
age^ and not infant baptism,that chiefly corrupted 



190 INFx^NT BAPTISM ; 

the Church of Eome. Where on earth is the 
Church of Christ to be found in a more spir- 
itual state than among the Waldenses, and in 
some of the Scottish communions ; especially the 
Free Church of Scotland ; where infant baptism, 
on the ground of the Abrahamic covenant, is 
held as a fundamental principle of Church or- 
der? How is it in our own country, where the 
Church Qxiioj^ protectio?!^ hut not ])atronage^ 
from the State? Are the denominations that 
practice infant baptism, as a general thing, less 
s])iritual and active and evangelical than those 
who do not? Do they less frequently enjoy the 
out-pourings of the Holy Spirit? Do they ex- 
hibit less zeal and energy in scattering the Scrip- 
tures over the world, and in disseminating the 
gospel in all the forms of Christian benevolence? 
Have they less the spirit of prayer, and of 
watchfulness against the inroads of sin? Are 
they less thorough in resisting vice and main- 
taining discipline in their Cliurches ? IN^o, there 
are no moi-e spiritual and evangelical denomi- 
nations of Christians in the whole Cliurch than 
are several of those which maintain the practice 
of dedicating their infant seed to God in the 
sacred ordinance of baptism. 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLALS' ED. 19 i 

Again, the fact that God has apijoiniecl the 
hajjtism of infants^ which I think lias been 
abundantly demonstrated in the preceding chap- 
ters, is conclusive evidence against its having 
any tendency to deteriorate the Chnrch. When 
he organized the Church in the family of Abra- 
ham, he opened its door for the reception of 
infants, and required them to receive the ordi- 
nance of initiation, for the express purpose of 
increasing her stability, and adding to the ele- 
ments of her spiritual prosperity. And so well 
pleased was he with its practical workings, that, 
after an experiment of almost two thousand 
years, when he came to change the external or- 
der of the Church, and abolish such ordinances 
as had ceased to be useful, he left the principle 
of infant membership untouched — merely chang- 
ing the initiating rite from circumcision to bap- 
tism. The experiment of two thousand years 
had not disappointed him in regard to the utility 
of extending the privileges of the 'covenant to 
the infant seed of believers. The measure had 
fully answered its design, and therefore was not 
abrogated, but confirmed, on the introduction of 
the Christian economy. Accordingly, baptism 
was conferred ou the children of believers, as 



192 

circiiincision had formerly been. And there Is 
certainly no excess of modesty in onr atiecting 
to discover dangerous tendencies where the wis- 
dom of God has detected none ; but on tlue con- 
trary, lias found important advantages. Let pious 
parents dedicate their children to God in the 
baptismal covenant, and earnestly endeavor to 
fultil their vows by training them up " in the 
nurture and admonition of the Lord," and there 
need be no feai*s entertained of its practical ten- 
dency in respect to the purity and spirituality of 
the Church. So far from being a source of dan- 
ger, it is one of the most powerful defences 
against doctrinal corruption and practical apos- 
tacy. 

7. But does there not^ after all, seem to he a 
manifest impropriety in administering so sacred 
an ordinance to an unconscious habe f In reply 
I would say, 

(1.) However the thing may seem to us, it 
does not become us to call in question a divinely 
appointed institution. AVhen we have once set- 
tled the point, that the infant seed of believers 
are, by divine authority, made appropriate sub- 
jects of baptism, the same as their parents, this 
should be the end of all scruple or doubt in regard 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 193 

to it. We are not at liberty tcf arraign the pro- 
priety of what God appoints. Our duty is to 
believe and obey. 

(2.) But why should there "seem to be an 
impropriety " in administering haptism to "an 
unconscious babe," any more than in adminis- 
tering circumcision to such an one ? An infant 
is as incapable of appreciating the import and 
design of circumcision as of baptism. And yet 
God did not judge the incapacity of an infant 
to be any obstacle to his circumcision ; and 
neither is it to his baptism. The one ordinance 
is just as sacred as the other ; and infants are 
made subjects of the one by the same authority 
, as they were of the other. 

Baptism is indeed a most sacred ordinance, 
because it is given by Heaven's authority, and 
confers important privileges. But these privi- 
leges are as valuable to infants as to adults. 
Suppose you lived in a country governed by an 
absolute monarch, as Kussia or China ; and the 
sovereign graciously condescends to enter into a 
contract or covenant with you, in which he con- 
veys to you the title to a valuable estate, with 
distinguished honors, on eminently favorable 
terms. And as the ratifying seal and visible 

I 13 



19i INFANT BAPTISM *, 

token of your interest in this covenant, he gives 
you a beautiful gem, so set as to be worn on 
your forehead. Wherever you go, and as long 
as you live, that gem upon your brow is the to- 
ken and seal of your title to the high privileges 
and possessions granted in the covenant promise 
of your sovereign. But in this arr^gement,the 
sovereign promises to you the same advantages 
in behalf of each of your children, and on the 
same fav(5rable terms as are granted to yourself. 
And to ratify the engagement, he also offers you 
a similar gem to be placed on each of their fore- 
heads, to be worn as a perpetual witness of their 
interest in this promise of their sovereign. 
Your placing that gem on the forehead of your 
child shall be understood as ratifying and seal- 
ing the contract or covenant between the sover- 
eign and yourself on behalf of the child. In 
this contract you engage that the child, when 
he conies to act for himself, shall fulfil certain 
conditions — the same as are required of your- 
self; and at the same time, you promise that 
you will^o all you can to secure his compliance 
with them. If he does comply with the condi- 
tions, he has a title to the fulfihnent of his 
sovereign's promise, of which that gem on his 



DIFFICULTIES KXPLAINFl). 195 

forehead is a witness. If he does not, he then 
forfeits the high advantages procured for him 
through the agency of his parent. 

Now, woukl it not be a privilege to your 
child, even though an infant, to have you close 
the contract in his behalf, and seal it, by placing 
the precious gem on his forehead ? What pa- 
rent would hesitate in such a case, or question 
the propriety of the thing, merely because the 
child is incapable of understanding and acting 
for himself? What affectionate parent would 
demur, and delay, and excuse himself by say- 
ing, "I do not believe in infants wearing jew- 
elry ; " or " I cannot see it to be my duty to bind 
so precious a gem on the forehead of my uncon- 
scious babe " ? Would it not rather be enough, 
in his mind, that the sovereign offers it as a 
privilege ? and would he not thankfully improve 
the privilege, not only for himself, but also in 
behalf of all his little ones ? Or would any 
kind parent bind the badge to his own forehead, 
but refuse it to his child, on the ground that 
possibly the sovereign mi^ht confer the same 
favors on the child without his wearing the of- 
fered gem ? Who would refuse to secure for his 
child the pledge of the contract, in tlie uncer- 



196 INFANT llAF'ilSM ; 

tain hope of liis iiltimatelj realizing an un- 
pledged possibility ? Surely, no one that loved 
his child. 

Well, Christian parent, that sovereign is God^ 
and that contract is the Ahrahcwiic covenant, 
and that precious gem is hajjtisrn. Bind it on 
your children as a seal of the covenant, attest- 
ing their interest in the sacred promise of Je- 
hovah — "I will be a God to thee, and to thy 
seed after thee ; " and thus ratify in their be- 
half, the most advantageous contract ever en- 
tered into by fallen man. 

No, there is not even a seeming impropriety 
in the application of this ordinance to infants, 
when its import and bearings are rightly under- 
stood. And I marvel that any intelligent Chris- 
tian can fail to see its proj^riety. I marvel that 
Christian parents can be blind to a divinely 
given privilege, so richly fraught with Heaven's 
peculiar blessings to the children whom they 
love. And how can pious parents, who are 
properly instructed on this subject, justify them- 
selves in neglecting so important ^dutyf — a 
duty which they oioe to their little ones by the 
gracious appointment of God ; while, by neg- 
lecting it, they expose those precious objects of 



DIFFICrLTIES EXPLAINED. 197 

their affection to that fearful denouncement of 
God against such as receive not the covenant 
seal, ''That soul shall be cut off from his peo- 
ple ; he hath broken my covenant." 

I entreat Christian parents who have little 
chiklren unbaptized, to consider this subject 
anew. Let not former prejudices stand in your 
way. If, like some, you are surrounded with 
those who make light of " baby sprinkling," as 
they are pleased to term it, or who look with 
mistaken horror on what they suppose to be a 
profanation of a holy ordinance, fasten yourself 
on GofVs unrevoked covenant^ and let not your 
faith be driven from its moorings by any waves 
of prejudice, ridicule, or unbelief. If you are 
the father, God holds you responsible in this 
matter, and will by no means excuse you in 
despising his covenant in respect to your chil- 
dren. I counsel you to avail yourself of the 
earliest opportunity to consecrate your unbap- 
tized children to God, and ratify the covenant 
in their behalf by causing its seal to be placed 
upon them. Then do all you can to redeem the 
baptismal vow, by training them up in the way 
of God's commands. If you are the mother, 
similar duties and responsibilities rest upon you, 



198 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

nless your power to obey is baffled by tlie su- 
perior authority of a husband. If it is thus baf- 
fled, that husband may expect a solemn reckon- 
ing at the last. But in that case, you can only 
pray, and persuade, and maintain the duty i7i 
pri?iciple, and humbly wait for God to open 
your way. Yet, let me charge you not to be de- 
ceived by any sophistry, however plausible it 
may appear ; and never give up your claim to 
the right of enjoying the full benefits of God's 
covenant, as well in behalf of your children as 
of yourself. Christian parents can never on 
earth adequately appreciate these covenant mer- 
cies. Eternity alone will wholly reveal their 
worth. But though we cannot here fully esti- 
mate their value, we can comprehend the fact 
that, if Jehovah be our God, and the God of our 
children, we have in this, both for us and them, 
the entire sum of all good. 

Let us then do our duty to our children — 
bring them into covenant with God along with 
ourselves ; cause them to wear the same sacred 
badge — the token of his promise ; and train 
them up to love and obey the Lord Jehovah as 
their God. And then, when we sit down with 
them in the palace of heaven, enjoying together 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 199 

the smile of the Saviour ; wlieu we walk with 
them the streets of the New Jerusalem, chant- 
ing the praises of redeeming grace ; when we 
kneel among those children at the foot of the 
eternal Throne, and cast our crowns before the 
Majesty of Heaven, crying '' Holy, holy, holy is 
the Lord God Almighty, which liveth forever 
and ever ; " and there learn how much our mu- 
tual joys ara ins to that precious covenant of 
God ; then, if not before, we shall rightly un- 
derstand and gratefully acknowledge the un- 
speakable PEIVILEGE OF INFANT BAPTISM. 



THB END. 



Date Due 


r 








, .. 








nPa% '- 


i~m&...^. 






































1 
























































































^1 







